Watson v. State, 36031
| Decision Date | 16 February 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 36031,36031,2 |
| Parties | Ralph WATSON v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Charles L. Camp, Rome, for plaintiff in error.
Chastine Parker, Solicitor, Rome, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
1. On trial under an accusation in two counts charging the defendant with possessing and transporting liquor, where the evidence shows that the defendant procured another to go with him and pick up a box, and on returning, the defendant seeing certain police officers stated to his companion, 'Take this and get out and run with it,' and the companion was then apprehended and the box investigated and found to contain 4 half gallon jars of moonshine liquor, it was not error against the objections urged to charge as follows: This charge is not, as contended, an expression of opinion as to what has been proved in the case. The court properly charged that the presumption of innocence remains in favor of the defendant throughout the trial and until the State by competent evidence satisfies the jury of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and it is true that when the State has made out a case for possessing or transporting liquor to this extent the burden of proceeding shifts to the defendant to establish his defense to the satisfaction of the jury. Elder v. State, 68 Ga.App. 227, 22 S.E.2d 521; Proctor v. State, 49 Ga.App. 497, 501, 176 S.E. 96. Where immediate and exclusive possession of an automobile, locker room, or other premises is shown, the inference is authorized that the owner of such property is the owner of what is contained therein, and this inference has been referred to as a rebuttable presumption. Arnold v. State, 85 Ga.App. 366(1), 69 S.E.2d 615; Miller v. State, 73 Ga.App. 810(1), 38 S.E.2d 180. That the application of such rule in any except cases where the evidence clearly shows immediate custody and control by the defendant would be unwarranted and 'a dangerous rule for the numerous owners of motor vehicles,' see Shepherd v. State, 77...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Neal v. State
...and cites several cases, none of which supports the opinion. To the contrary, in one of the cited cases, to wit, Watson v. State, 93 Ga.App. 368, 91 S.E.2d 832, the following charge to the jury is approved, to 'If a person is driving an automobile or has an automobile in his possession, cus......
-
Satterfield v. State
...and control, and all that was found in the automobile is presumed to be in his possession and to belong to him. See Watson v. State, 93 Ga.App. 368, 91 S.E.2d 832; Tant v. State, 123 Ga.App. 760, 182 S.E.2d 502, supra; Lee v. State, 126 Ga.App. 38, 189 S.E.2d 872. None of the errors complai......
-
Craig v. State
...as being those taken from defendant's person and from the automobile which he was driving, with no one accompanying him. Watson v. State, 93 Ga.App. 368, 91 S.E.2d 832; Moody v. State, 126 Ga.App. 108, 109, 189 S.E.2d 889; Satterfield v. State, 127 Ga.App. 528(2), 194 S.E.2d 295; Elrod v. S......
-
Chambers v. State, 63422
...the owner of what is contained therein, and this inference has been referred to as a rebuttable presumption. [Cit.]" Watson v. State, 93 Ga.App. 368, 91 S.E.2d 832 (1956). Appellant testified that several other named individuals had been in his car during the week prior to and on the mornin......