Cole v. State

• Decision Date: 12 July 1904
• Citation: 48 S.E. 156,120 Ga. 485
• Parties: COLE v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

48 S.E. 156

120 Ga. 485

COLE

v.STATE.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

July 12, 1904.

INTOXICATING LIQUORS — ILLEGAL SALE—EVIDENCE—SUFFICIENCY—INSTRUCTIONS —HARMLESS ERROR.

1. On the trial of one charged with illegally selling whisky it is not error to admit evidence to show that the house of the accused was searched by officers subsequently to the day on which the alleged sale was made, and that bottles of whisky were found therein.

2. Nor is it error in such a case to charge that the state, in making out its case, is not confined to the day named in the accusation, but may prove the commission of the offense at any time within two years prior to the date of the accusation; and that, whether acquitted or convicted, the accused cannot again be tried for such an offense, committed within the period of limitation governing the case on trial.

3. It is not error for the trial judge to call attention to and correct, in his charge to the jury, an erroneous statement of law announced by counsel in argument.

4. Where the accused has offered no evidence, and the only witnesses introduced are those for the state, it is not error of which he can complain that the trial judge charged on the subject of impeachment of witnesses, when no attempt had been made to impeach any witness.

5. The verdict was fully supported by evidence.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from City Court of Waynesboro; P. P. Johnston, Judge.

William Cole was convicted of illegally selling liquor, and brings error. Affirmed.

Brinson & Davis, for plaintiff in error.

F.S. Burney, for the State.

CANDLER, J. The accused was convicted in the city court of Waynesboro under an accusation charging him with Illegally selling whisky. He made a motion for a new trial on numerous grounds. It was overruled, and he excepted.

1. It is complained that the court erred in allowing a witness for the state to testify, over objection of counsel for the accused, that upon searching the house of the accused on a day subsequent to that on which the accusation charged that the sale was made bottles of whisky were found, the objection being that this evidence could in no way illustrate the issue whether the accused had sold whisky on the day alleged. This evidence was clearly admissible as a circumstance from which the jury might infer that the accused kept whisky in his house for sale, and therefore to strengthen the testimony given as to the sale charged in the accusation.

2. Error is also assigned on the charge of the court to the effect that in making out its case the state was not confined to the day named in the accusation, but might prove the commission of the offense at any time within two years prior to the date of the accusation; and upon the further charge that, whether convicted or acquitted, the accused could not be again tried for any offense committed within the period of limitation governing this indictment. It is only necessary to say that these principles are fundamental in the penal law, and that the complaint that they were injurious to the accused, and had a tendency to mislead and bias the jury against him, will not work the grant of a new trial.

3. The court charged the jury as follows: "Under the Mosaic dispensation I believe it is true, as my Brother Davis informed the jury, that it required more than one witness to establish the guilt of a person. Moses was a...