Staggers v. State
| Decision Date | 05 April 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 38164,No. 2,38164,2 |
| Citation | 101 Ga.App. 463,114 S.E.2d 142 |
| Parties | L. B. STAGGERS v. STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict of guilty.
2. special grounds 1, 2, 3 and 4 are not meritorious for the reasons set out in the body of the opinion.
L. B. Staggers, was convicted in the City Court of Douglas, Coffee County, for possessing more than one quart of alcoholic liquors as defined in Code, § 58-1011. Coffee County is a dry county and liquor cannot be legally sold therein under the provisions of Code, § 58-1063. The jury returned a verdict of guilty. The defendant filed a motion for a new trial on the general grounds and thereafter amended the motion so as to add four special grounds. The court overruled the motion for a new trial and it is to this judgment that the case is here for review.
The evidence shows substantially as follows: E. D. Gilliard, Tax Collector of Coffee County, testified as to whether or not L. B. Staggers owned a certain car. Jack Young, a police officer for the City of Douglas, testified that the defendant operated a cafe on Cherry Street in Douglas, Georgia; that the witness saw the defendant about 12 O'clock at night; that the witness and three other officers went to the defendant's place of business to search for whisky and that they found 3 pints and 4 half pints of whisky under the counter, as well as 'a bunch of beer'; that the defendant operates a Chevrolet car in which they found 3 pints, 16 half pints of whisky and several cases of beer; that all this was in Coffee County; that the car was parked near the defendant's place of business but that witness did not see the defendant drive that car that day nor for several days previous to that day. Malcolm Hutto, a police officer for the City of Douglas, testified substantially as did the witness Young, but in addition to such testimony, he testified that the defendant admitted that the whisky was his. Newsom Vickers, police officer for the City of Douglas, testified that they did possess a search warrant to search the defendant's place of business. The defendant, in a statement, admitted that the whisky and beer found in his place of business belonged to him, his wife, his brother and one of the girls who worked there; that they were planning a party and the whisky in the car belonged to one Baker and others and that Baker had the keys to the car and opened it in order for the officers to search it that the defendant did not own the car but had given the car back to Baker.
J. Laddie Boatright, Douglas, for plaintiff in error.
M. L. Preston, Sol., Douglas, for defendant in error.
1. The defendant admitted that the liquor was his. Coffee County is a dry county. It follows that the evidence shows that the defendant was in illegal possession of whisky in a dry county. The evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict of guilty.
2. Special ground 1 assigns error because it is contended that the court erred in admitting certain evidence to the jury, over objections of counsel for the defendant. The evidence pointed out in this special ground concerns ownership of a Chevrolet automobile, in which some of the liquor was found. Irrespective of whether or not the ownership of the car was proved (and we do not concede this point), the liquor found in the defendant's place of business was sufficient to convict him of the crime charged. Therefore, it would not matter whether or not the liquor found in the car belonged to the defendant. This special ground is not meritorious. Moreover, counsel for the defendant did not object to the inadmissibility of the evidence in regard to the ownership of the car at the time such evidence was presented, which omission amounted to a waiver of any objections that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thornton v. State
...v. State, 129 Ga.App. 558(5), 200 S.E,2d 286 (1973); Butler v. State, 127 Ga.App. 539(2), 194 S.E.2d 261 (1972); Staggers v. State, 101 Ga.App. 463, 465, 114 S.E.2d 142 (1960); Smallwood v. State, 95 Ga.App. 766(1), 98 S.E.2d 602 (1957); Roddenberry v. State, 90 Ga.App. 66, 82 S.E.2d 40 (19......
-
Scudiere v. State
...v. State, 116 Ga.App. 479(2), 157 S.E.2d 784) or as a confession (Story v. State, 145 Ga. 43(2),88 S.E. 548; Staggers v. State, 101 Ga.App. 463, 464, 465, 114 S.E.2d 142; Keen v. State, 43 Ga.App. 331(3), 158 S.E. 611; Chapman v. State, 28 Ga.App. 107(2), 110 S.E. 332; Washington v. State, ......
-
Williams v. Mayor and Bd. of Aldermen of City of Atlanta
...S.E.2d 40; Hodges v. State, 98 Ga.App. 97(7), 104 S.E.2d 704 (rev'd on other grounds, 214 Ga. 614, 106 S.E.2d 795; Staggers v. State, 101 Ga.App. 463, 465(5), 114 S.E.2d 142; McCray v. State of Illinois, 386 U.S. 300, 87 S.Ct. 1056, 18 L.Ed.2d 82; 8 Wigmore, Evidence § 2374 (McNaughton rev.......