Ga. App. at 511 (1) (a) (punctuation omitted); see also Brown, 267 Ga. App. at 645 (1) (“It is only when the evidence is insupportable as a matter of law that the jury’s verdict may be disturbed, even where the evidence is entirely circumstantial.” (punctuation omitted)). 12 See Brown v. State, 314 Ga. App. 212, 213 (2) (723 SE2d 504) (2012) (“The [Sjtate presented evidence other than [the defendant’s] mere spatial proximity to the pipe containing cocaine to show that he had constructive possession over it. The pipe was dry, although it had been raining and the surrounding area was ‘soaked’; from this evidence the court as factfinder could infer that the pipe had been on the ground for a very short period of time.”); Reason v. State, 283 Ga. App. 608, 610 (1) (a) (642 SE2d 236) (2007) (<HOLDING>); see also Wright v. State, 302 Ga. App. 332,
holding that insufficient evidence supported the defendants conviction for possession of cocaine when officers executed a warrant on a small oneroom apartment and found large quantities of crackcocaine in plain view although the defendant supplied police with a false name when they questioned him at the apartment there was no evidence that the defendant had drugs on his person or that he had ever used cocaine holding that a mistrial was not required after a police officer testified that he had once chased the defendant after the defendant had fired a gun where the testimony was a logical response to the prosecutors questions the statement was not made maliciously the evidence against the defendant was great and the jury was instructed to disregard the testimony holding that a prior conviction for using a communications device to facilitate the distribution of cocaine was admissible under rule 404b to prove that the defendant had the requisite intent to distribute cocaine holding that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence that defendant possessed cocaine when although other people were present and had access to the yard the surveilling officers testified that in the period immediately prior to the search the defendant was the only person to retrieve items from the bucket where the cocaine was found which the defendant did repeatedly as police watched holding evidence of uncharged prior cocaine sales with numerous similarities to those for which the defendant was on trial admissible for among other purposes showing the existence of a common plan involving the prior sales and the transactions which were the subject of the charges pending against the defendant