Following a jury trial, co-defendants Henry Kelvin Lott and Linda Watson were convicted on one count of trafficking in cocaine1 and one count of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.2 Lott was also convicted by the same jury on one count of possession of hydrocodone.3 Both appeal their convictions and the denial of their respective motions for new trial, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support their convictions and that the trial court erred in denying their motions to suppress evidence seized by means of an allegedly unlawful search warrant. In addition, Lott contends that the trial court erred in failing to find that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance, and Watson argues that the court erred in allowing hearsay testimony. Because the charges arose from the same incident and the appellants were tried together, we have consolidated their separate appeals for review. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm in both cases. 1. We first address Lott’s and Watson’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting their convictions. “On appeal from a criminal conviction, the evidence must be construed in a light most favorable to the verdict and appellants no longer enjoy a presumption of innocence.” Punctuation omitted. Dennis v. State .4 In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we do not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility, but only determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found the defendants guilty of the charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia .5 Additionally, “on appeal, the standard of review for denial of a motion for directed verdict is the same as that for determining the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction.” Punctuation omitted. Terry v. State .6
So viewed, the record shows that in March 2006, an undercover officer with the Gwinnett County Police Department had a confidential informant set up a drug deal between the officer and a drug dealer named Jesus Motta. On March 9, 2006, the undercover officer met Motta and Motta’s girlfriend at a local gas station and told Motta that he wanted to buy an ounce of cocaine. Motta told the undercover officer that he did not have that amount of cocaine in his possession but that if the officer gave him $1,400, he would go and get it for him. Ultimately, the undercover officer agreed to give Motta $700 for half an ounce of cocaine, and Motta told the officer that he would meet him back at the gas station in about an hour.
