Farmer v. State
| Decision Date | 03 March 1954 |
| Parties | FARMER v. STATE. 32 Beeler 253, 196 Tenn. 253, 265 S.W.2d 555 |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Hillard M. Roberts, Livingston, for plaintiff.
Knox Bigham, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Defendant appeals from conviction of the illegal possession of beer for the purpose of sale, and punishment by fine of $300 and sentence to jail for 90 days.
The only assignments of error properly made and argued to support the appeal are (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction; (2) that certain argument of the Attorney General was improper and prejudicial, and (3) that the punishment was excessive.
As to the first proposition, the defendant introduced no proof. It is undisputed that on October 16, 1953, 20 cases of beer were found in the home of the defendant. Three cases were in a refrigerator, and three more in a tub of ice in the basement. The rest of the beer was stored on the premises. On a table near the refrigerator, there was a cigar box which contained $10 or $15 in currency and change. In an adjoining room the searching officers also discovered a stack of half-dollars three or four inches high. At the time of the search, in addition to the defendant, two other parties were present and drinking beer.
As any other fact in a criminal case, the purpose of the possession of beer may be inferred by the jury from the surrounding circumstances. The evidence in the present case supports an inference of possession for sale: many bottles of beer in the refrigerator; the possession of a larger amount in storage on the premises; the location of the large amount of change and currency near the refrigerator, and the presence of third parties on the premises drinking beer. From the sum total of all these circumstances, the jury was reasonably warranted in concluding that the purpose of the possession of this large amount of beer ready for sale, was for sale.
Defendant relies on Beasley v. State, 193 Tenn. 327, 246 S.W.2d 32. The proof there was of bare possession of a large quantity of beer, with no proof of other circumstances from which the purpose of the possession might be inferred. The facts of the Beasley case are readily distinguishable from the facts of the case before us.
The next assignment is that certain argument of the Attorney General was prejudicial. The assailed argument appears only in the motion for new trial, which, as has been frequently said, is a mere pleading...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Turner v. State
...held that the possession of six cases of beer on defendant's premises was not enough to prove intent to resell. In Farmer v. State, 196 Tenn. 253, 265 S.W.2d 555 (1954), twenty cases of beer were on the premises, some of which were in a refrigerator and a tub of ice being cooled; in additio......
-
Agricultural Ins. Co. v. Holter
...Tenn. 19, 140 S.W. 209; Hagood v. State, 183 Tenn. 49, 190 S.W.2d 1023; Koehn v. Hooper, 193 Tenn. 417, 246 S.W.2d 68; Farmer v. State, 196 Tenn. 253, 265 S.W.2d 555. In an effort to support this assignment, defendant has filed a so-called 'Transcript Supplement' with the Clerk, which is a ......
-
Dykes v. State
...part of the refrigerator and the rest were either in the bottom of the refrigerator or on the floor of the kitchen. In Farmer v. State, 196 Tenn. 253, 265 S.W.2d 555, twenty cases of beer were found in the home of the defendant, three cases of which were in the refrigerator and three more i......