State v. Willis Johnson, (No. 5702)
| Court | Supreme Court of West Virginia |
| Writing for the Court | HATCHER, P. |
| Citation | 104 W.Va. 586 |
| Parties | State v. Willis Johnson |
| Decision Date | 29 November 1927 |
| Docket Number | (No. 5702) |
104 W.Va. 586
State
v.
Willis Johnson
Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.
Submitted November 22, 1927.
Decided November 29, 1927.
[104 W.Va. 586]
1. Criminal Law Where Inference Favorable to Accused May Reasonably be Drawn From Evidence, Jury May Not Adopt Unfavorable One.
Where two inferences may be drawn from a circumstance, one of which is favorable and the other unfavorable to an accused, the jury may not adopt the inference against him, where the one in his favor is reasonable under all the evidence in the case. State v. Gill, 101 W. Va. 242.
(Criminal Law, 16 C. J. § 1560 [Anno].)
(Note: Parenthetical references by Editors, C. J. Cyc. Not part of Syllabi.)
Error to Circuit Court, Barbour County.
Willis Johnson was convicted of owning, operating, and having an interest in a moonshine still and he brings error.
Judgment reversed; verdict set aside;
new trial awarded.
J. Blackburn Ware and Paul B. Ware, for plaintiff in error. Howard B. Lee, Attorney General, and J. Luther Wolfe, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
Hatcher, President:
Joe Newman, Jonah Parsons, William Norris, and the defendant Willis Johnson were jointly indicted for owning, operating and having an interest in a moonshine still. The first two admitted their guilt. The defendant plead not guilty, but was found guilty by the jury. He contends that the evidence does not support the verdict.
The evidence of the State proper to consider on the question of his guilt, is as follows: Some officers came upon Newman, Parsons and defendant in the woods, at a still in operation; defendant was seated about eight feet from the still
[104 W.Va. 587]
doing nothing; Newman and Parsons were closer to the still; an officer drew a pistol and commanded the three to put up their hands; Norman and Parsons submitted to arrest, but defendant ran, and when arrested a few hours later denied having been at the still.
The defendant admitted at the trial that he was at the still when the officer came, but denied having any interest in or connection with the still. He explained that he had been on a ridge above the still gathering chestnuts when Newman and Parsons, who were his friends, called to him to come down; that he went to the still in response to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Fortner, No. 18941
...See also State v. Hoselton, 179 W.Va. 645, 371 S.E.2d 366 (1988); State v. Martin, 112 W.Va. 88, 163 S.E. 764 (1932); State v. Johnson, 104 W.Va. 586, 140 S.E. 532 (1927). However, proof that the defendant was present at the time and place the crime was committed is generally acknowledged t......
-
State v. Burford, No. 10387
...122 W.Va. 16, 7 S.E.2d 27; State v. Stutler, 115 W.Va. 393, 176 S.E. 426; State v. Wolfe, 113 W.Va. 459, 168 S.E. 656; State v. Johnson, 104 W.Va. 586, 140 S.E. 532; State v. Whitehead, 104 W.Va. 545, 140 S.E. 531; State v. Mininni, 101 W.Va. 611, 133 S.E. 320; State v. Gill, 101 W.Va. 242,......
-
State v. Fischer, No. 13383
...not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused, but must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of his innocence. State v. Johnson, 104 W.Va. 586, 140 S.E. 532 (1927). Furthermore, where circumstantial evidence is relied upon to convict, the accused is entitled to an acquittal unless the......
-
State v. Harris, No. 14254
...men when the evidence is insufficient just to uphold the law and deter crime. The instruction contained a reference to State v. Johnson, 104 W.Va. 586, 140 S.E. 532 (1927), but no such instructional language was approved in that case. The trial court committed no error in refusing this inst......
-
State v. Fortner, No. 18941
...See also State v. Hoselton, 179 W.Va. 645, 371 S.E.2d 366 (1988); State v. Martin, 112 W.Va. 88, 163 S.E. 764 (1932); State v. Johnson, 104 W.Va. 586, 140 S.E. 532 (1927). However, proof that the defendant was present at the time and place the crime was committed is generally acknowledged t......
-
State v. Burford, No. 10387
...122 W.Va. 16, 7 S.E.2d 27; State v. Stutler, 115 W.Va. 393, 176 S.E. 426; State v. Wolfe, 113 W.Va. 459, 168 S.E. 656; State v. Johnson, 104 W.Va. 586, 140 S.E. 532; State v. Whitehead, 104 W.Va. 545, 140 S.E. 531; State v. Mininni, 101 W.Va. 611, 133 S.E. 320; State v. Gill, 101 W.Va. 242,......
-
State v. Fischer, No. 13383
...not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused, but must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of his innocence. State v. Johnson, 104 W.Va. 586, 140 S.E. 532 (1927). Furthermore, where circumstantial evidence is relied upon to convict, the accused is entitled to an acquittal unless the......
-
State v. Harris, No. 14254
...men when the evidence is insufficient just to uphold the law and deter crime. The instruction contained a reference to State v. Johnson, 104 W.Va. 586, 140 S.E. 532 (1927), but no such instructional language was approved in that case. The trial court committed no error in refusing this inst......