Brooks v. State

• Decision Date: 08 December 1916
• Docket Number: 7660.
• Citation: 90 S.E. 971,19 Ga.App. 45
• Parties: BROOKS v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

90 S.E. 971

19 Ga.App. 45

BROOKS v. STATE.

No. 7660.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

December 8, 1916

Rehearing Denied Dec. 19, 1916.

Syllabus by the Court.

The trial judge did not err in his charge to the jury on the question of keeping on hand liquor at a place of business.

There was no error in the charge of the court on the question of selling intoxicating liquors and keeping liquors on hand, and the jury necessarily understood from the entire charge that before the defendant could be convicted of the latter offense, it must be shown that the keeping of liquors on hand was at his place of business.

The court having instructed the jury on the law as to the prisoner's statement, it was not necessary to charge them that they should look to his statement in connection with the testimony, in passing upon his guilt or innocence.

In instructing the jury upon the weight, force, and credit to be given to the testimony of witnesses, it is not necessary for the court to say that the jury should consider the statement of the defendant as well as the evidence of the witnesses and the failure so to charge does not deprive the defendant of any right given to him under the law, where the law relating to the prisoner's statement has been given in charge.

The court did not err in the following charge: "If liquor was found in the upstairs part of the building, and was connected with the room or place of business of defendant, so that there was convenient access to the same, and if you believe from all the facts and circumstances of the case that liquor was kept in that upstairs part of the building, that the defendant had control of it, it would not matter whether anybody else had anything to do with the liquor in that upstairs part of the building or not. I mean to say that if the defendant, with others, had control of that liquor, kept it there, they would all be guilty, and each would be guilty but I charge you, on the other hand, that if these others kept it and had control of it, and the defendant did not, you could not convict him, so far as keeping liquor on hand at his place of business is concerned." This charge was not subject to exception upon the ground that it invaded the province of the jury and instructed the jury, as a matter of law, that the whisky found was in the place of business of the defendant and in his custody and control, and failed to charge that this was a question for the jury to determine.

The instruction to the jury that they should "look to the evidence to see whether that liquor was kept on hand by this defendant, kept there by himself or through and in connection with other persons," was not error upon the ground that the court failed to instruct the jury that the keeping of the liquor was not a violation of the law, unless it was kept on hand at the defendant's place of business. The charge of...