Lemon v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Lemon v. State

19 S.E.2d 52, 66 Ga. App. 653, 1942 Ga. App. LEXIS 262

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 25, 1942

Docket29404.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 19 S.E.2d 52 (Lemon 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

Lemon v. State, 19 S.E.2d 52, 66 Ga. App. 653, 1942 Ga. App. LEXIS 262 (Ga. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Gardner, J.

1. Whatever may have been the character of the alleged “lottery” book in question, it nevertheless appeared that the book was found in a dresser drawer in the house of the husband, and not on the person of the defendant wife, or in her possession, or in any possession which might be traceable to her. In such case the presumption was that the possession was that of the husband. Bailey v. State, 60 Ga. App. 556 (4 S. E. 2d, 409); Dailey v. State, 58 Ga. App. 401 (198 S. E. 791); Young v. State, 22 Ga. App. 111 (95 S. E. 478); Broome v. Davis, 87 Ga. 584 (13 S. E. 749). While this presumption was rebuttable, there was no evidence whatever submitted in rebuttal.

*654 2. As to the two “lottery” tickets found by the officers in the pocket of the apron which the defendant was wearing while ironing clothes, the evidence did not exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused. Conceding that they were lottery tickets, their possession was thoroughly consistent with the innocence of the accused. The tickets, according to their indicias, were such as might have represented her own purchases, or purchases to be made. Our view is further supported by the statement of the defendant that she could not read or write, which the State did not challenge.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, 0. J., and McIntyre, J., concur.

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

Gardner, J.

1. Whatever may have been the character of the alleged “lottery” book in question, it nevertheless appeared that the book was found in a dresser drawer in the house of the husband, and not on the person of the defendant wife, or in her possession, or in any possession which might be traceable to her. In such case the presumption was that the possession was that of the husband. Bailey v. State, 60 Ga. App. 556 (4 S. E. 2d, 409); Dailey v. State, 58 Ga. App. 401 (198 S. E. 791); Young v. State, 22 Ga. App. 111 (95 S. E. 478); Broome v. Davis, 87 Ga. 584 (13 S. E. 749). While this presumption was rebuttable, there was no evidence whatever submitted in rebuttal.

*654 2. As to the two “lottery” tickets found by the officers in the pocket of the apron which the defendant was wearing while ironing clothes, the evidence did not exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused. Conceding that they were lottery tickets, their possession was thoroughly consistent with the innocence of the accused. The tickets, according to their indicias, were such as might have represented her own purchases, or purchases to be made. Our view is further supported by the statement of the defendant that she could not read or write, which the State did not challenge.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, 0. J., and McIntyre, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 S.E.2d 52, 66 Ga. App. 653, 1942 Ga. App. LEXIS 262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lemon-v-state-gactapp-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack