Miller v. State
Decision Date | 22 June 1966 |
Docket Number | No. 2,No. 42078,42078,2 |
Citation | 114 Ga.App. 57,150 S.E.2d 353 |
Parties | William MILLER v. The STATE |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Stafford R. Brooke, Dalton, for plaintiff in error.
R. L. Vining, Jr., Sol. Gen., Dalton, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
1. Kent v. State, 105 Ga.App. 312(1), 124 S.E.2d 296. This is not a presumption of law but an inference arising from a given state of facts, and may apply to one in charge of an establishment as its proprietor although he is not in fact the owner. See Miller v. State, 94 Ca.App. 259, 94 S.E.2d 120. The inference will not arise where it appears that the liquor is found in a location equally accessible to the defendant and others not members of his immediate family and where there is no direct evidence connecting the defendant with the illegal possession to the exclusion of such others. Harper v. State, 85 Ga.App. 252(1), 69 S.E.2d 102; Lunceford v. Mayor &c. of Washington, 17 Ga.App. 730(2), 88 S.E. 212; Rhoddenberry v. State, 50 Ga.App. 378, 178 S.E. 170.
2. Under a search warrant naming particularly the store of E. D. Ridley as the place to be searched for nontax-paid liquor, officers entering the grocery found the defendant, who stated that he was running the place for Mr. Ridley, and one customer. Twelve to sixteen pints and half pints of tax-paid liquor were found under some rags in a box which had been shoved behind or under a counter-top Coca-Cola box. An additional seven to ten cases of bonded whiskey were located in a closet in the living quarters section of the building. There was evidence that the defendant was seen almost daily working at the grocery store, and no evidence that the owner or any person worked at the store nor any evidence as to who had access to the living quarters. The defendant introduced no evidence and made no statement. The liquor was not located in a place accessible to customers. So far as appears from the scanty evidence introduced, none of which was denied by the defendant, he was the only person 'running' the business...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gunther v. Gillis
... ... On June 30, 1958, the appellant, a permanent employee under the Merit System of Personnel Administration employed by the State Highway Department as a telephone operator in Jesup, Ga., suffered an accident as a result of which she was placed on leave of absence without pay ... ...
-
Crumley v. State
...judge used the word 'may' while he contends that the instruction should use the term 'is.' The rule is as set forth in Miller v. State, 114 Ga.App. 57, 150 S.E.2d 353: 'Where the evidence shows that intoxicating liquor was found in the place of business of one charged with possesseion of su......
-
Gee v. State, 48925
...evidence connecting the defendant with the illegal possession to the exclusion of such others.' (Emphasis supplied.) Miller v. State, 114 Ga.App. 57, 150 S.E.2d 353 and cits. 'Whether or not the defendant presented sufficient evidence to rebut the inference arising from the finding of the (......