Ralston v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Ralston v. State

17 S.E.2d 81, 66 Ga. App. 62, 1941 Ga. App. LEXIS 118

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 17, 1941

Docket29260.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 17 S.E.2d 81 (Ralston 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

Ralston v. State, 17 S.E.2d 81, 66 Ga. App. 62, 1941 Ga. App. LEXIS 118 (Ga. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Gardner, J.

1. Where, on a charge of illegally possessing whisky not bearing State revenue stamps, the State fails to prove either actual or constructive possession or control in the defendant, such lack of proof as to such essential ingredient renders the evidence insufficient to support the verdict. Reference to the premises on which the whisky was found as those of the defendant, when it is not shown that he was in possession either by himself or an agent, is insufficient when it further appears that the witness, by whom alone such facts were sought to be shown, further testified: “I don’t know whose premises this whisky was on. I don’t know whether it was on the defendant’s premises. 1 don’t know where his premises are. I don’t know whether he has any up there or not.”

2. It becomes unnecessary to pass on the remaining assignments of error.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, G. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

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

Gardner, J.

1. Where, on a charge of illegally possessing whisky not bearing State revenue stamps, the State fails to prove either actual or constructive possession or control in the defendant, such lack of proof as to such essential ingredient renders the evidence insufficient to support the verdict. Reference to the premises on which the whisky was found as those of the defendant, when it is not shown that he was in possession either by himself or an agent, is insufficient when it further appears that the witness, by whom alone such facts were sought to be shown, further testified: “I don’t know whose premises this whisky was on. I don’t know whether it was on the defendant’s premises. 1 don’t know where his premises are. I don’t know whether he has any up there or not.”

2. It becomes unnecessary to pass on the remaining assignments of error.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, G. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 S.E.2d 81, 66 Ga. App. 62, 1941 Ga. App. LEXIS 118, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ralston-v-state-gactapp-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack