Rowe v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Rowe v. State

21 S.E.2d 816, 68 Ga. App. 6, 1942 Ga. App. LEXIS 8

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 15, 1942

Docket29613.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 21 S.E.2d 816 (Rowe 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

Rowe v. State, 21 S.E.2d 816, 68 Ga. App. 6, 1942 Ga. App. LEXIS 8 (Ga. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

Tbe defendant was convicted of the offense of operating a lottery, known as the “number game.” She was tried by a judge of the criminal court of Fulton County, presiding without the intervention of a jury. Her certiorari was overruled and that judgment is assigned as error.

The evidence contained in the petition for certiorari, plus that set forth in the untraversed answer of the trial judge, was sufficient to authorize the judge to find that the lottery was being operated in the home and on the premises of the defendant. Such evidence raised a presumption that the defendant was aiding and abetting in the operation of the lottery, and the judge was authorized to find that the presumption was not rebutted by any evidence adduced. It is true that “Evidence of mere presence at the place where the offense is being committed, there being nothing to show the defendant’s participation in the illegal act, is insufficient to authorize conviction” (Jones v. State, 64 Ga. App. 308, 13 S. E. 2d, 91), but that ruling is not applicable to the facts of the instant case, and there is no conflict between that decision and our present ruling. The defendant’s conviction was authorized by the evidence, and the special assignments of error in the petition for certiorari having been expressly abandoned in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, the judgment overruling the certiorari must be, and is,

Affirmed.

MacIntyre and Gardner, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

Tbe defendant was convicted of the offense of operating a lottery, known as the “number game.” She was tried by a judge of the criminal court of Fulton County, presiding without the intervention of a jury. Her certiorari was overruled and that judgment is assigned as error.

The evidence contained in the petition for certiorari, plus that set forth in the untraversed answer of the trial judge, was sufficient to authorize the judge to find that the lottery was being operated in the home and on the premises of the defendant. Such evidence raised a presumption that the defendant was aiding and abetting in the operation of the lottery, and the judge was authorized to find that the presumption was not rebutted by any evidence adduced. It is true that “Evidence of mere presence at the place where the offense is being committed, there being nothing to show the defendant’s participation in the illegal act, is insufficient to authorize conviction” (Jones v. State, 64 Ga. App. 308, 13 S. E. 2d, 91), but that ruling is not applicable to the facts of the instant case, and there is no conflict between that decision and our present ruling. The defendant’s conviction was authorized by the evidence, and the special assignments of error in the petition for certiorari having been expressly abandoned in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, the judgment overruling the certiorari must be, and is,

Affirmed.

MacIntyre and Gardner, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 S.E.2d 816, 68 Ga. App. 6, 1942 Ga. App. LEXIS 8, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rowe-v-state-gactapp-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack