dissenting.
To authorize a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the proved facts must exclude only other “reasonable” hypotheses. OCGA § 24-4-6. Thus, there is no requirement that the circumstantial evidence “remove every possibility of the defendant’s innocence.” Eason v. State, 217 Ga. 831 (2) (125 SE2d 488) (1962).
“[Q]uestions as to reasonableness are generally to be decided by the jury which heard the evidence and where the jury is authorized to find that the evidence, though circum*594stantial, was sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of guilt, the appellate court will not disturb that finding, unless the verdict of guilty is unsupportable as a matter of law.”
Roper v. State, 263 Ga. 201 (1) (429 SE2d 668) (1993).
“This of necessity is so, for we have no legal yardstick by which we can ordinarily determine what in a given case is a reasonable hypothesis, save the opinion of twelve upright and intelligent jurors. After having heard the witnesses and having observed them testify, they are more capable of judging the reasonableness of a hypothesis produced by the evidence, or the lack of evidence, and the defendant’s statement, than is a court of law.”
Harris v. State, 236 Ga. 242, 244-245 (1) (223 SE2d 643) (1976). Here, the jury found no other “reasonable” hypothesis save Mitchell’s guilt of the crime of trafficking in cocaine and, on appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed. In my opinion, the Court of Appeals applied the correct standard of appellate review in its affirmance of Mitchell’s conviction, but a majority of this Court now erroneously makes its own subjective determination as to the “reasonableness” of the hypotheses other than Mitchell’s guilt. Therefore, I must respectfully dissent.
The officers found the cocaine under the floor mat on the passenger side of a vehicle. Mitchell was the passenger. Thus, the contraband had been directly under Mitchell’s feet. As the majority correctly notes, a finding of Mitchell’s constructive possession cannot be based merely upon the spatial proximity between him and the cocaine. However, in addition, the State presented evidence that the cocaine could be broken into pieces “lj]ust like potato chips in a potato chip bag.” Despite this brittleness, the cocaine took the form of “fairly large cookies” at the time of its discovery. The cocaine “wasn’t as broken up” at the time of its seizure as it was at the time of trial. Under these circumstances, the jury was authorized to find that the only “reasonable” hypothesis was that the cocaine had been placed under the floor mat by Mitchell or with his involvement only a very short time before its discovery by the officers. Otherwise, the brittle cocaine would not have been in relatively intact “cookies” at the time of its seizure, but would have been in crumbles as the result of the pressure of Mitchell’s feet on the floor mat.
Thus, contrary to the conclusion of the majority opinion, Mitchell’s conviction does not rest upon evidence of mere spatial proximity. There was this additional evidence of temporal proximity. If the *595brittle-but-intact cocaine was discovered under Mitchell’s very feet, then he must have been involved in its recent placement there. Moreover, there was evidence that Mitchell was so nervous at the time of the ostensibly routine traffic stop that one of the officers asked the driver whether Mitchell suffered from a nervous disorder. In determining whether there was a “reasonable” hypothesis other than Mitchell’s guilt, the jurors were authorized to use such reasonable inferences and reasonable deductions as ordinarily prudent persons would make in light of their everyday experience and knowledge of human conduct and behavior. Kalb v. State, 195 Ga. 544 (1) (25 SE2d 24) (1943), overruled on other grounds, Howard v. State, 237 Ga. 471, 474 (228 SE2d 860) (1976). Applying the reasonable inferences and deductions gained from experience and knowledge of human conduct and behavior, the jury certainly was authorized to find that the only “reasonable” hypothesis to explain Mitchell’s extreme nervousness before the brittle-but-intact cocaine was found under the floor mat beneath his feet was that he was guilty of the constructive possession of that contraband.
In finding the evidence insufficient, the majority cites circumstances which serve to negate the State’s contention that Mitchell was guilty because he must have seen the hump in the floor mat created by the cocaine before the traffic stop. However, even if the hypothesis that Mitchell was guilty because he must have known of the presence of the cocaine prior to the traffic stop is an unreasonable one, there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to authorize a finding that he was guilty because he actually placed or was involved in placing the cocaine under the floor mat only a short time before the traffic stop. As discussed, this latter hypothesis is amply supported by the evidence of spatial and temporal proximity, coupled with the evidence of Mitchell’s unwarranted extreme nervousness. That the officers did not immediately notice the hump, that the hump could have been caused by something other than the cocaine and that there was no evidence that Mitchell ever placed his feet directly on the hump are factors which would contradict only the hypothesis that Mitchell must have known that the contraband was present even if he was not involved in putting it there. Those circumstances do not negate the evidence that Mitchell himself placed or was involved in placing the cocaine under the floor mat shortly before the traffic stop.
The jury was authorized to find that the evidence, though circumstantial, was sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis except Mitchell’s guilt of constructive possession of the cocaine seized from beneath his very feet. In my opinion, the majority misapplies the long-standing principles of law regarding appellate review of a criminal conviction based upon circumstantial evidence and erroneously places itself in the jury box. Therefore, I dissent to the reversal *596of Mitchell’s conviction.
Decided November 3, 1997. Timothy T. Herring, for appellant. Tommy K. Floyd, District Attorney, Thomas R. Berry, Mark S. Daniel, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.