Dukes v. State
| Decision Date | 13 April 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 35061,No. 2,35061,2 |
| Citation | 81 S.E.2d 864,90 Ga.App. 50 |
| Parties | DUKES v. STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Elie L. Holton, James L. Boatright, Douglas, for plaintiff in error.
W. Glenn Thomas, Solicitor-Gen., Jesup, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
1. (a) The defendant was convicted of illegally possessing and controlling distilled spirits and alcohol which did not bear the tax stamp required by Code, § 58-1056. He filed his motion for a new trial on the general grounds, and thereafter added three special grounds. The motion was overruled. Error is assigned on this judgment.
(b) The evidence for the State was substantially as follows: Sheriff E. L. Hatton and Deputy Sheriff Gordon Woods located two judge of whisky in some woods a short distance from where the defendant lived. The officers concealed themselves and, after waiting for some time, the defendant arrived with Joe Spivey in Spivey's car. The defendant and Spivey stopped in the road opposite where the whisky was buried in the grass, weeds, and palmettos. The defendant alighted from the car and went to where the two jugs were hidden. The defendant carried a pint bottle with him to the place where the whisky was hidden. He raised one jug of the whisky up to his head and began taking a drink out of it. When this happened the officers 'raised up' and Sheriff Hatton remarked, 'Let me have that Alex.' At that time the defendant threw the jug of whisky which he had in his hands into the road and Deputy Sheriff Woods picked it up. The sheriff then asked the defendant to move around. The sheriff picked up the other jug of whisky. This last jug was practically between the defendant's feet. We will discuss the other evidence in more detail as we treat the special grounds. There was testimony to the effect that the containers did not have any revenue stamps attached to them. Insofar as the general grounds are concerned, the verdict is supported by the evidence. The evidence for the State and for the defendant is in sharp conflict, but the jury believed the State's evidence. The defendant in his statement admits that he had gone to this particular spot where the whisky was found, and admits that he went there for the purpose of pouring some whisky from the jug into a bottle to take it to a sick friend. At the time the officers apprehended the defendant, he did not tell them anything concerning whether or not he was obtaining the whisky for a sick friend. We know of no law that would authorize anyone to illegally possess non-tax-paid whisky for the benefit of a sick friend or for anyone else. So far as the general grounds are concerned, it would seem that the defendant made a plenary confession of violating the law. Counsel for the defendant cite Graham v. State, 150 Ga. 411, 104 S.E. 248, for the proposition that the evidence in this case was insufficient to authorize a verdict as to the general grounds. The principle set forth in the Graham case is not applicable here. The gist of the ruling there is to the effect that one cannot be convicted of possessing and controlling intoxicating whisky on evidence that he was seen intoxicated. Counsel for the defendant also call our attention to Mathis v. State, 28 Ga.App. 65, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tant v. State, s. 45846
...connection Pierce v. State, 43 Ga.App. 435, 437, 159 S.E. 125 commenting upon the Graham case and the facts therein and Dukes v. State, 90 Ga.App. 50, 81 S.E.2d 864, in which it was stated that 'the gist of the ruling in (the Graham case) is to the effect that one cannot be convicted of pos......
-
Rice v. State
...was honorably discharged from the Air Force. This testimony was sufficient to put appellant's character in issue. Dukes v. State, 90 Ga.App. 50, 51(b)(1), 81 S.E.2d 864 (1954). "The good character of an accused person is a substantive fact, and evidence of such good character should be weig......
- Sharp-Boylston Co. v. Bostick, SHARP-BOYLSTON