Brookshire v. State

I concur for the reason that even imminent possible possession does not constitute “constructive possession” as that term is legally defined.' The State must prove “that defendant alone or jointly with another had actual or constructive possession of [the contraband], . . . Constructive possession is shown where one knowingly has both the power and the intention at a given time to exercise *421authority or control over a thing. [Cits.]” Smith v. State, 205 Ga. App. 810, 811 (424 SE2d 56) (1992).

Decided February 3, 1998. Leo E. Benton, Jr., for appellant. Lydia J. Sartain, District Attorney,…