Shelton v. State
| Decision Date | 09 June 1950 |
| Citation | 230 S.W.2d 986,190 Tenn. 518,26 Beeler 518 |
| Parties | , 190 Tenn. 518 SHELTON v. STATE. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Kilgo & Armstrong, Greeneville, for plaintiff in error.
J. Malcolm Shull, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
Defendant appeals from conviction of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, a fine of $250 and jail sentence of 90 days for the offense. The only assignment of error made to support the appeal is that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction.
The pertinent facts are these: Armed with a search warrant, officers of Greene County went to the house where defendant lives with his wife. There is no evidence of the legal ownership of the house, whether it was rented or owned by the defendant and his wife, or either of them. The only evidence is that of the State through three law officers who testified that as they approached the house to serve the warrant, they heard the sound of glass being broken and thereafter, when the wife had opened the door they found in the bathroom broken glass of whisky bottles, and while the officers were on the premises, Mrs. Shelton, wife of the defendant, ran to the front door and threw out two bottles, one of which broke and the other of which was recovered and found to contain whisky. At the time of this search the defendant was not at home, and there is no evidence whatever, to connect him with possession or ownership of the whisky.
The case is ruled in all particulars by Jim Black v. State, Greene Criminal, unpublished opinion of December 11, 1948.
The presumption that the defendant, as husband and head of the family, is the possessor and owner of any whisky found on the premises of the marital dwelling, Crocker v. State, 148 Tenn. 106, 251 S.W. 914, is a presumption of law merely, and is effective as proof only so long as there is an entire lack of evidence. In the present case, the testimony of the officers that the wife was in possession and exercised dominion over the whisky by attempting to destroy it, rebuts in its entirety, the presumption of law. Kelley v. State, 184 Tenn. 143, 147, 197 S.W.2d 545. In the face of the positive evidence of the officers, the presumption of law has no probative force to support the conviction. Frank v. Wright, 140 Tenn. 535, 548, 205 S.W. 434; Kelley v. State, supra; Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. H. Rouw & Co., 25 Tenn.App. 475, 480, 159 S.W.2d 839; North Memphis Sav. Bank v. Union Bridge & Const. Co., 138 Tenn....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whited v. State
...that they are owned and possessed by the owner of the premises. See Lampley v. State, 196 Tenn. 534, 268 S.W.2d 572; Shelton v. State, 190 Tenn. 518, 230 S.W.2d 986; Hatchett v. State, 208 Tenn. 399, 346 S.W.2d Davidson v. State, 223 Tenn. 193, 443 S.W.2d 457, 463. The defendant Lame's deni......
-
Turner v. State
...the presumption is completely refuted. Marie v. State, supra; Veal v. State, 196 Tenn. 443, 268 S.W.2d 345 (1954); Shelton v. State, 190 Tenn. 518, 230 S.W.2d 986 (1950). The evidence of possession in someone else must also be credible evidence. Evans v. State, 188 Tenn. 58, 216 S.W.2d 724 ......
-
Hall v. State
...merely and is effective as proof only so long as there is an entire lack of evidence on that point.' This charge follows Shelton v. State, 190 Tenn. 518, 230 S.W.2d 986, which is quoted in Veal v. State, 196 Tenn. 443, 268 S.W.2d The only criticism that can be made of that instruction is th......
-
Lampley v. State
...that they were in effect recognizing Magee as the owner of the liquor. The plaintiff in error relies upon our case of Shelton v. State, 190 Tenn. 518, 230 S.W.2d 986, as controlling. We do not think the Shelton case is in point because in that case it was pointed out that the husband there ......