Haney v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Haney v. State

44 S.E.2d 492, 75 Ga. App. 736, 1947 Ga. App. LEXIS 630

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 1, 1947

Docket31749.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 44 S.E.2d 492 (Haney 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

Haney v. State, 44 S.E.2d 492, 75 Ga. App. 736, 1947 Ga. App. LEXIS 630 (Ga. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Townsend, J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) The charge was error, in that it infers as a matter of law that if they found the defendant to be in control of the premises as head of the family, he would as a matter of fact be in control and possession of the whisky, without further instructing the jury that there is a legal presumption that the whisky was in the possession of the defendant, but the presumption is a rebuttable one. See Young v. State, 22 Ga. App. 111 (2).

When whisky is found on the premises of the defendant which are in his exclusive control and possession as husband and head of the family, the inference arises that the possession is that of the defendant- and is with his knowledge and consent. However, this inference is rebuttable. Gray v. State, 66 Ga. App. 50 (supra). See also Dardarian v. State, 55 Ga. App. 286, Autrey v. State, 18 Ga. App. 13 (2), Morgan v. State, 62 Ga. App. 493, and Thomas v. State, 64 Ga. App. 315 (supra).

The case, being reversed on the special ground, it is -unnecessary to discuss the general grounds.

Judgment reversed.

MacIntyre, P. J., and Gardner, J., concur.

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

Townsend, J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) The charge was error, in that it infers as a matter of law that if they found the defendant to be in control of the premises as head of the family, he would as a matter of fact be in control and possession of the whisky, without further instructing the jury that there is a legal presumption that the whisky was in the possession of the defendant, but the presumption is a rebuttable one. See Young v. State, 22 Ga. App. 111 (2).

When whisky is found on the premises of the defendant which are in his exclusive control and possession as husband and head of the family, the inference arises that the possession is that of the defendant- and is with his knowledge and consent. However, this inference is rebuttable. Gray v. State, 66 Ga. App. 50 (supra). See also Dardarian v. State, 55 Ga. App. 286, Autrey v. State, 18 Ga. App. 13 (2), Morgan v. State, 62 Ga. App. 493, and Thomas v. State, 64 Ga. App. 315 (supra).

The case, being reversed on the special ground, it is -unnecessary to discuss the general grounds.

Judgment reversed.

MacIntyre, P. J., and Gardner, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 S.E.2d 492, 75 Ga. App. 736, 1947 Ga. App. LEXIS 630, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haney-v-state-gactapp-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack