Payne v. State, 35002
Decision Date | 29 January 1954 |
Docket Number | No. 2,No. 35002,35002,2 |
Citation | 89 Ga.App. 568,80 S.E.2d 93 |
Parties | PAYNE v. STATE |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The evidence amply supports the verdict.
2. The denial of a motion for mistrial is largely within the discretion of the trial court and, unless this discretion is manifestly abused, the appellate courts will not reverse the trial court in denying such motion.
The defendant was convicted of illegally possessing alcoholic liquors. He duly filed his motion for new trial on the statutory ground and thereafter amended by adding one special ground. This motion was denied, and on this judgment error is assigned here. In view of the nature of the case we deem it advisable to set out the evidence somewhat in detail.
The State introduced only one witness. The defendant introduced no evidence, but relied on his statement insofar as the statutory grounds are concerned. The State's witness, the sheriff, testified substantially: On July 10, 1953, he, together with Roy Gordon, E. L. Jones, and Ben Ward, other liquor-enforcement officers, went to the home of the defendant about 3:30 or 4 in the afternoon; and he and one of the officers went to the basement door near a glass window. They could not get in the door because it was fastened. As the sheriff looked through the window, he saw the defendant take into his hands two half-gallon jars of what is generally known as 'moonshine' liquor. The sheriff further testified that the defendant turned on the spigot to the sink and began pouring alcoholic liquors out of the jars into the sink; that shortly thereafter the defendant unfastened the back door; that the sheriff went into the house and sized the two jars from which the defendant had poured the alcoholic liquors; that there was a small amount of the alcoholic liquors still in the jar; that, when the defendant began pouring the contents of the jars into the sink, they were each about half full. The sheriff testified from his experience and from the odor of the amount remaining in the jars that he positively knew the liquod was alcoholic liquors. The sheriff indicated by objects as to where he was standing, where the window and the sink were located. He also testified that the jars had not gotten out of his sight from the time he saw the defendant pouring the contents into the sink and the time he seized the jars. The sheriff further testified that one of the other officers went into the back door with the sheriff and the other two officers accompanying the sheriff were trying to get in the front of the house. All of the officers were locked out. The sheriff did not arrest the defendant that day. The sheriff further testified that the defendant wanted to know if the sheriff was damn little enough to make a case against him for two empty jars, whereupon the sheriff said: 'I told you a number of times if you didn't get out of the liquor business I was going to catch you, and I did.'
The sheriff also testified that the defendant said the doors would be locked next time (it being the screen door which was locked at the time under discussion here). The sheriff said: 'I would have caught you with the liquor in the jars, if your daughter had not shut the door in my face.' He said, 'I have got them trained that way.'
On cross-examination, the sheriff testified that a man by the name of Claud Ellard was in the house when the officers entered but did not stay there very long. The sheriff did not have Ellard subpoenaed. The sheriff testified that the window was down, but that the witness was 'right up there looking at him [meaning the defendant].' One of the officers started to take the jars, whereupon the defendant said, 'I paid a * * * fine for two empty jars one time,' and stated that he was not going to pay for two more empty jars. The sheriff informed the defendant that he did not need the jars.
The sheriff further testified that, when he arrived at the home of the defendant, he did not see the defendant's daughter in the kitchen. He saw only the defendant who was pouring out the alcoholic liquors from the jars. The sheriff did not see the defendant in the yard. The children of the defendant were in the yard and ran up to the door. The sheriff had a search warrant. Mr. Gordon and Mr. Jones are State Federal Agents and Mr. Ward is a Deputy Sheriff.
The defendant made a statement as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jones v. State
...than the same statement elicited by the deliberate and improper conduct of an attorney, who is an officer of the court. Payne v. State, 89 Ga.App. 568, 573, 80 S.E.2d 93. Mistrial is more likely to be the solution required in those instances where the state's attorney directly elicits the i......
-
Brown v. State, 43614
...by the provisions of Code § 81-1009, which has reference to the conduct of attorneys, who are officers of the court. Payne v. State, 89 Ga. App. 568, 573 (80 SE2d 93). Mistrial is more likely to be the solution required in those instances where the solicitor directly elicits the improper ev......
-
Pope v. State
...the witness stands on a different base than answers responsive to matters improperly elicited by the state's attorney. Payne v. State, 89 Ga.App. 568, 573, 80 S.E.2d 93; Brown v. State, 118 Ga.App. 617, 621, 165 S.E.2d 185. In this instance, the answer was completely unexpected. The court a......