Johnson v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Johnson v. State

143 S.E. 905, 38 Ga. App. 369, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 240

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 10, 1928

Docket19033

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 143 S.E. 905 (Johnson 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

Johnson v. State, 143 S.E. 905, 38 Ga. App. 369, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 240 (Ga. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodwokth, J.

1. Under the ruling in Carter v. State, 21 Ga. App. 493 (94 S. E. 625), and the facts of this case, it was not error for the court to fail to charge the jury on the law of circumstantial evidence.

2. The evidence was sufficient to authorize the jury to conclude that apparatus for distilling and manufacturing intoxicating liquors was located on premises in the actual possession of the accused. Indeed he did not deny this. Such evidence, by the express terms of the law (Act 1917. Ex. Sess., p. 18), is prima facie evidence that the person in actual possession had knowledge of the fact that the apparatus was located on his premises, and the burden of proof is on him to show that he had no such knowledge. Whether or not he had such knowledge is a jury question which has been determined against him, and in this we can not say that the jury erred. Malcom v. State, 28 Ga. App. 627 (112 S. E. 651); Neville v. State, 29 Ga. App. 232 (114 S. E. 720).

■Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Luke, J, concur.

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

Bloodwokth, J.

1. Under the ruling in Carter v. State, 21 Ga. App. 493 (94 S. E. 625), and the facts of this case, it was not error for the court to fail to charge the jury on the law of circumstantial evidence.

2. The evidence was sufficient to authorize the jury to conclude that apparatus for distilling and manufacturing intoxicating liquors was located on premises in the actual possession of the accused. Indeed he did not deny this. Such evidence, by the express terms of the law (Act 1917. Ex. Sess., p. 18), is prima facie evidence that the person in actual possession had knowledge of the fact that the apparatus was located on his premises, and the burden of proof is on him to show that he had no such knowledge. Whether or not he had such knowledge is a jury question which has been determined against him, and in this we can not say that the jury erred. Malcom v. State, 28 Ga. App. 627 (112 S. E. 651); Neville v. State, 29 Ga. App. 232 (114 S. E. 720).

■Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Luke, J, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 S.E. 905, 38 Ga. App. 369, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-state-gactapp-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack