Ridley v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Ridley v. State

92 S.E.2d 308, 93 Ga. App. 557, 1956 Ga. App. LEXIS 799

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 15, 1956

Docket36089

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 92 S.E.2d 308 (Ridley 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

Ridley v. State, 92 S.E.2d 308, 93 Ga. App. 557, 1956 Ga. App. LEXIS 799 (Ga. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Gardner, P. J.

1. On the trial of one accused of the possession of non-tax-paid liquor the presumption that whisky found in a man’s house belongs to him is a legal presumption, proof of which is sufficient to make a prima facie case that it was in the possession of the defendant. Gilder v. State, 52 Ga. App. 252 (183 S. E. 95).

2. It is the prerogative of the jury to accept the deiendant’s statement as a whole or to reject it as a whole, to believe it in part or to disbelieve it in part. In the exercise of this discretion they are unlimited. Beatty v. State, 54 Ga. App. 280 (187 S. E. 686) and citations.

3. The evidence in this case which shows that officers came to the defendant’s home and, looking through a glass door saw him bending over boxes which on examination proved to contain 24 pints and 48 one-half pints of non-tax-paid whisky; that another man ran from the house and the defendant said to the officers “let him go he has nothing to do with it,” and that the defendant also said to the officers when asked whether there was any more whisky in the house that that was all the whisky there was, is sufficient to sustain the conviction. The defendant’s contention that he had just returned from Florida, had been home only fifteen minutes before the arrival of the officers, and that he had no connection with the possession of the non-tax-paid whisky, is supported [558]*558only by his statement which the jury was not required to accept. The motion for a new trial on the general grounds only was properly denied by the trial court.

Decided March 15, 1956. Stafford B. Brooke, for plaintiff in error. Erwin Mitchell, Solicitor-General, contra,

Judgment affirmed.

Townsend and Carlisle, JJ., concur.

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

Gardner, P. J.

1. On the trial of one accused of the possession of non-tax-paid liquor the presumption that whisky found in a man’s house belongs to him is a legal presumption, proof of which is sufficient to make a prima facie case that it was in the possession of the defendant. Gilder v. State, 52 Ga. App. 252 (183 S. E. 95).

2. It is the prerogative of the jury to accept the deiendant’s statement as a whole or to reject it as a whole, to believe it in part or to disbelieve it in part. In the exercise of this discretion they are unlimited. Beatty v. State, 54 Ga. App. 280 (187 S. E. 686) and citations.

3. The evidence in this case which shows that officers came to the defendant’s home and, looking through a glass door saw him bending over boxes which on examination proved to contain 24 pints and 48 one-half pints of non-tax-paid whisky; that another man ran from the house and the defendant said to the officers “let him go he has nothing to do with it,” and that the defendant also said to the officers when asked whether there was any more whisky in the house that that was all the whisky there was, is sufficient to sustain the conviction. The defendant’s contention that he had just returned from Florida, had been home only fifteen minutes before the arrival of the officers, and that he had no connection with the possession of the non-tax-paid whisky, is supported [558]*558only by his statement which the jury was not required to accept. The motion for a new trial on the general grounds only was properly denied by the trial court.

Decided March 15, 1956. Stafford B. Brooke, for plaintiff in error. Erwin Mitchell, Solicitor-General, contra,

Judgment affirmed.

Townsend and Carlisle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 S.E.2d 308, 93 Ga. App. 557, 1956 Ga. App. LEXIS 799, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ridley-v-state-gactapp-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack