Clark v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Clark v. State

180 S.E. 652, 51 Ga. App. 434, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 727

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 20, 1935

Docket24809

StatusPublished

This text of 180 S.E. 652 (Clark v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Clark v. State, 180 S.E. 652, 51 Ga. App. 434, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 727 (Ga. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Guerry, J.

The defendant was charged wiih possessing and [435]*435transporting liquor. Tbe evidence for the State disclosed that an officer saw Joe Gaddis, May Bennett and the defendant all riding in the front seat of a car which was being driven by Joe Gaddis. The car did not belong to the defendant. The officer followed the car, and when it stopped near a church and he came up beside them the defendant was sitting under the wheel, but was not driving the car. He found fifteen gallons of whisky in jugs in the back of the car, between the front and rear seats, with a blanket thrown over it. Joe Gaddis testified, that he was driving the car and had the woman with him, and that he picked up George Clark, the defendant, who lived in Dalton, in Ooltewah, Tenn., to carry him to Dalton; that George Clark did not know there was any whisky in the car. It was there when Clark got in the car to go to Dalton and was between the seats. He stopped the ear near the church where the officer found them, because he, Joe Gaddis, was pretty full, and “I was trying to get him to drive. He did not want to drive.” Joe Gaddis entered a plea of guilty. Clark denied knowing anything about the whisky, or its presence in the car, and stated that he was waiting for a train at Ooltewah when Joe Gaddis asked him to ride to Dalton with him.

This evidence, being entirely circumstantial, is insufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of the guilt of Clark. The car was not owned by him and had not been driven by Mm, and the evidence fails to show guilty knowledge. Summerville v. State, 37 Ga. App. 18 (138 S. E. 525); Fussell v. State, 40 Ga. App. 224 (149 S. E. 154); Young v. State, 35 Ga. App. 193 (132 S. E. 453). The trial judge therefore erred in overruling the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, O. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Guerry, J.

The defendant was charged wiih possessing and [435]*435transporting liquor. Tbe evidence for the State disclosed that an officer saw Joe Gaddis, May Bennett and the defendant all riding in the front seat of a car which was being driven by Joe Gaddis. The car did not belong to the defendant. The officer followed the car, and when it stopped near a church and he came up beside them the defendant was sitting under the wheel, but was not driving the car. He found fifteen gallons of whisky in jugs in the back of the car, between the front and rear seats, with a blanket thrown over it. Joe Gaddis testified, that he was driving the car and had the woman with him, and that he picked up George Clark, the defendant, who lived in Dalton, in Ooltewah, Tenn., to carry him to Dalton; that George Clark did not know there was any whisky in the car. It was there when Clark got in the car to go to Dalton and was between the seats. He stopped the ear near the church where the officer found them, because he, Joe Gaddis, was pretty full, and “I was trying to get him to drive. He did not want to drive.” Joe Gaddis entered a plea of guilty. Clark denied knowing anything about the whisky, or its presence in the car, and stated that he was waiting for a train at Ooltewah when Joe Gaddis asked him to ride to Dalton with him.

This evidence, being entirely circumstantial, is insufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of the guilt of Clark. The car was not owned by him and had not been driven by Mm, and the evidence fails to show guilty knowledge. Summerville v. State, 37 Ga. App. 18 (138 S. E. 525); Fussell v. State, 40 Ga. App. 224 (149 S. E. 154); Young v. State, 35 Ga. App. 193 (132 S. E. 453). The trial judge therefore erred in overruling the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, O. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 S.E. 652, 51 Ga. App. 434, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 727, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-state-gactapp-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack