Zetterower v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Zetterower v. State

70 S.E.2d 43, 85 Ga. App. 708, 1952 Ga. App. LEXIS 816

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 19, 1952

Docket33980

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 70 S.E.2d 43 (Zetterower 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

Zetterower v. State, 70 S.E.2d 43, 85 Ga. App. 708, 1952 Ga. App. LEXIS 816 (Ga. Ct. App. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Townsend, J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) Although denied by the defendant, the jury was authorized to find that he admitted the possession of the whisky. Bulloch County being dry—of which fact this court takes judicial notice (see Leonard v. State, 204 Ga. 465 (4a), 50 S. E. 2d, 212)—-the quantity of whisky was in violation of law. In Brown v. State, 74 Ga. App. 880 (3, 4, 5) (41 S. E. 2d, 912), it was held: “Where the defendant admitted that the whisky belonged to him without saying anything more, this raised a legal presumption that he knowingly possessed, had or controlled it. This presumption was rebuttable. Without anything more known or stated, such admission of specific facts, together with the legal presumption deemed to exist, constitute all the essential elements of the offense of having, controlling or possessing the prohibited liquor. When the defendant admitted that ‘the whisky was his’ or belonged to [710]*710him without stating anything more, this was the legal equivalent of an admission that he was in the possession of it, which would be a confession that he possessed the whisky as charged.” The statement of the defendant here to the arresting officers, after they recovered the.sack of whisky from the pond, that they need not look further as that was all he had, amounted to a confession and, taken in connection with the other circumstances herein set out, was sufficient to authorize the jury to return a verdict of guilty. Wren v. State, 57 Ga. App. 641 (196 S. E. 146); Smith v. State, 40 Ga. App. 622 (150 S. E. 923); Hogan v. State, 32 Ga. App. 25 (122 S. E. 637).

The trial court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Gardner, P. J., and Carlisle, J., concur.

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

Townsend, J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) Although denied by the defendant, the jury was authorized to find that he admitted the possession of the whisky. Bulloch County being dry—of which fact this court takes judicial notice (see Leonard v. State, 204 Ga. 465 (4a), 50 S. E. 2d, 212)—-the quantity of whisky was in violation of law. In Brown v. State, 74 Ga. App. 880 (3, 4, 5) (41 S. E. 2d, 912), it was held: “Where the defendant admitted that the whisky belonged to him without saying anything more, this raised a legal presumption that he knowingly possessed, had or controlled it. This presumption was rebuttable. Without anything more known or stated, such admission of specific facts, together with the legal presumption deemed to exist, constitute all the essential elements of the offense of having, controlling or possessing the prohibited liquor. When the defendant admitted that ‘the whisky was his’ or belonged to [710]*710him without stating anything more, this was the legal equivalent of an admission that he was in the possession of it, which would be a confession that he possessed the whisky as charged.” The statement of the defendant here to the arresting officers, after they recovered the.sack of whisky from the pond, that they need not look further as that was all he had, amounted to a confession and, taken in connection with the other circumstances herein set out, was sufficient to authorize the jury to return a verdict of guilty. Wren v. State, 57 Ga. App. 641 (196 S. E. 146); Smith v. State, 40 Ga. App. 622 (150 S. E. 923); Hogan v. State, 32 Ga. App. 25 (122 S. E. 637).

The trial court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Gardner, P. J., and Carlisle, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 S.E.2d 43, 85 Ga. App. 708, 1952 Ga. App. LEXIS 816, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zetterower-v-state-gactapp-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack