Sims v. State, 33797
| Decision Date | 18 October 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 33797,No. 2,33797,2 |
| Citation | 84 Ga.App. 753,67 S.E.2d 254 |
| Parties | SIMS v. STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The evidence was sufficient to authorize a finding by the jury that the premises upon which the distilling apparatus was located was in the possession and control of the defendant, nor was a finding demanded that the defendant did not actually know of its presence thereon.
2. While an apt and pertinent request to charge should be given substantially in the language requested, nevertheless, if the charge is fully and fairly given it is not error that the exact language of the request is not used.
Earnest Sims was tried and convicted in the City Court of Carrollton under an accusation charging him with knowingly permitting, allowing, having and possessing on his premises apparatus for distilling prohibited liquors. The evidence in the case showed that the defendant was in charge of a 300 acre tract of land which comprised the estate of his deceased father; that there was a house on the land known as the Old Sims Place where two of his sisters stayed when they were home over the weekends; that there was a barn back of the house with a road or trial leading past the barn; that about 200 yards from the barn and in the pasture where the defendant kept his cows, by the side of a branch, were two new one-thousand gallon stills with drum and gasoline burner and fuel, together with an old still which had been burned; that the defendant himself lived across the road from these premises a few hundred yards beyond the house; that on January 2, 1951, the officers started to the defendant's house to search it for whisky; that on the road at the Old Sims Place they found a red pickup truck with another person driving and the defendant inside; that they searched the truck for whisky without finding any, then searched the defendant's house without success, then returned to the place where they had stopped the truck and backtracked it past the Sims barn for a distance of about 200 yards, where they found 75 one-gallon cans which had been unloaded at a spot about 50 yards from and within sight of the still.
The defendant introduced three witnesses who testified to his good character. In his statement to the jury he stated that he had no knowledge that the still was located on the premises; that he had been ill and was physically unable to run a still; that he had never drunk, owned or manufactured liquor; that his sister had pointed out some car tracks on the premises the weekend previously but he had not investigated them, had not seen any car go in, and did not know whose car it was.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty, whereupon the defendant filed a motion for a new trial on the general grounds which was later amended by the addition of two special grounds. The overruling of this motion is assigned as error.
Emmett Smith, Carrollton, for plaintiff in error.
Earl Staples, Sol., Carrollton, for defendant in error.
TOWNSEND, Judge (after stating the foregoing facts.)
1. Code, § 58-209, making it a misdemeanor to knowingly permit or allow any one to have, possess or locate on his premises any apparatus for manufacturing prohibited liquors, provides in part as follows: 'When any such apparatus is found or discovered upon said premises the same shall be prima facie evidence that the person in actual possession had knowledge of the existence of the same * * * the burden of proof in all cases being upon the person in actual possession to show the want of knowledge of the existence of such apparatus on his premises.' While it does not appear whether the defendant was an actual owner or tenant in common of the premises on which the apparatus was discovered, it does appear without dispute that the land was under his control. It is undisputed that he told the arresting officer that the pasture where the still was found was in his possession, and that he daily tended his cows in that pasture. The only road to the still came by the barn, and 'there was no way in the world not to know' the still was there, according to one witness. There...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Phillips v. State, 67830
...an accused so as to generate reasonable doubt of guilt..." Swett v. State, 242 Ga. 228(2), 248 S.E.2d 629 (1978). See Sims v. State, 84 Ga.App. 753(2), 67 S.E.2d 254 (1951). When a defendant has offered evidence of his own good character either by his testimony or by testimony of witnesses ......
-
Jones v. State
...any other fact tending to establish the defendant's innocence, and ought to be so regarded by the court and jury." Sims v. State, 84 Ga.App. 753, 757, 67 S.E.2d 254 (1951). It was held that the defense of good character is the reputation surrounding the defendant previous to the charge for ......
-
Fountain v. Smith, 38575
...the subject requested is fully and fairly given, it is not error that the exact language of the request is not used.' Sims v. State, 84 Ga.App. 753, 756, 67 S.E.2d 254. E. L. Smith filed an action for damages in the Superior Court of Montgomery County against Robert Earl Fountain as a resul......
-
Morrow v. State, 66279
...Favors v. State, 228 Ga. 196(3), 184 S.E.2d 568 (1971); Brazil v. State, 117 Ga. 32, 37(3), 43 S.E. 460 (1902); Sims v. State, 84 Ga.App. 753, 756, 67 S.E.2d 254 (1951). The charge given by the court was an accurate statement of the law which fairly embodied the principles contained in the ......