Gee v. State
| Decision Date | 21 January 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 44944,44944,1 |
| Citation | 121 Ga.App. 41,172 S.E.2d 480 |
| Parties | Horace GEE v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Greer, Sartain & Carey, Jack M. Carey, Gainesville, for appellant.
Jeff C. Wayne, Dist. Atty., Charles W. Stephens, Gainesville, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Horace Gee was tried and convicted for the offense of 'Possessing dangerous drugs.' The indictment alleged that on January 31, 1969, Gee possessed amphetamine, methamphetamine and pentobarbital in violation of the Georgia Drug Abuse Control Act as defined in Chapter 79A-9 of the Code of Georgia Annotated.
An agent of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation testified that he executed a search warrant at a location described as 'Gee's Texaco Station'; that one Luther McQuire was the only person there; and that he found five bottles and two small bags containing pills in the cash register. An employee of the State Board of Pharmacy testified that he transported the pills to the State Crime Laboratory. A toxicologist for the Department of Public Safety Crime Laboratory testified that he made an analysis of the pills and found them to contain amphetamine, methamphetamine and pentobarbital. An employee of the Secretary of State's office testified that Horace Gee was not licensed to deal in dangerous drugs in Georgia.
Heyward Hosch, Jr. testified that he was a gasoline distributor for the Texaco Corporation; that on January 31, 1969, the Texaco station in question was under lease by him to Horace Gee and Billy Gee, doing business as 'Gee Texaco Service Station'; but that during January Horace Gee had had discussions with him to the effect that he was closing out his operations at this station so that he could devote all of his attention to another Texaco station further down the Athens highway which he (Gee) owned; and that Horace Gee did in fact cease operation of the leased station. He further testified that on February 10, 1969, the station in question was leased to Edward G. Beatty. Hosch testified also that the records of Texaco reflect that the last delivery of gasoline made to the station in question was made to Luther A. McQuire. Hosch stated that there were various other people who worked for Gee and operated the station at various periods of time.
In an unsworn statement Horace Gee stated in effect that he had been trying to run both stations but had found it impossible; that he left his brother in charge of the station in question for a while until he discovered that he had been 'messing with these things' (presumably referring to pills), and he fired him; that he was in the process of selling the place to Ed Beatty and in the meantime left the place with Luther McQuire to manage and run; that he had no knowledge of any wrongdoing there. Defendant also stated: 'I didn't have any knowledge whatsoever of the pills or dangerous drugs of whatever you want to call 'em.'
The jury returned a verdict of guilty and the appeal is from the judgment of conviction and sentence. Held:
1. There is absolutely no direct evidence in the record that the dangerous drugs found at the station were the property of Horace...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Neal v. State
...sentence was imposed. 1. Appellant argues that since other persons had equal access to the drugs, that under the ruling of Gee v. State, 121 Ga.App. 41, 172 S.E.2d 480; Ivey v. State, 226 Ga. 821, 824, 177 S.E.2d 702; and Reed v. State, 127 Ga.App. 458, 194 S.E.2d 121 the conviction should ......
-
Smith v. State, 60463
...572, 575, 226 S.E.2d 769 (1976). As was held in Moreland v. State, 133 Ga.App. 723, 212 S.E.2d 866 (1975), following Gee v. State, 121 Ga.App. 41, 172 S.E.2d 480 (1970), constructive knowledge that drugs are located on one's premises predicated only upon the discovery of the drugs in that l......
-
Valenzuela v. State
...The evidence does not affirmatively show equal access of other persons to the house, so as to vitiate the conviction (Gee v. State, 121 Ga.App. 41, 42(1), 172 S.E.2d 480). It shows instead that appellants (and their baby) were the only people living there at the time of the search (Castlebe......
-
Johnson v. State, 47086
...Townsend v. State, supra, p. 531, 154 S.E.2d p. 789. The facts in the case at bar are distinguishable from those in Gee v. State, 121 Ga.App. 41, 172 S.E.2d 480. The verdict of the jury was authorized by the evidence. Grounds 1, 2, 3, and 6 of defendant's enumeration of errors are without 3......