Wren v. State, 26538.
Citation | 57 Ga.App. 641,196 S.E. 146 |
Decision Date | 07 January 1938 |
Docket Number | No. 26538.,26538. |
Parties | WREN . v. STATE. |
Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
Rehearing Denied March 29, 1938.
Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
Error from Superior Court, Richmond County; A. L. Franklin, Judge.
Charlie Wren was convicted of having, possessing, and controlling intoxicating liquor, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
C. Wesley Killebrew, of Augusta, for plaintiff in error.
George Hains, Sol. Gen., of Augusta, and E. J. Clower, of Atlanta, for the State.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court..
1. The defendant was convicted of having, possessing, and controlling intoxicating liquor.
Briefly stated, the testimony of the witnesses for the State shows that on September 28, 1936, officers Joshua R. Cawley and L. H. Wilkins, armed with a search warrant against Charlie Wren and his place of business, raided "the Charlie Wren place * * * a place that has been operated by Charlie Wren out on the Milledgeville road." When the officers first arrived at the Charlie Wren place, which was in the nature of a tourist camp and a filling station, they found A. R. Snuffer in charge of the place, and they read the warrant to him and told him they had a search warrant for the place. At the time the search was being made, Charlie Wren was not at the place, but Snuffer immediately picked up the telephone and called Charlie Wren, stating, "You had better come over here; the officers are raiding the place." In response to this call the defendant in about ten minutes arrived at the place being raided and asked the officers, "What is all this?" The officers told him that it was a raid, and read the warrant to him. In the search which occurred prior to the arrival of the defendant, various brands of liquors and gins were found on the premises.
In his statement to the jury, defendant admitted that he owned the place where the liquors were found, that he built it about two and a half years before and ran it until July, 1935, when he had to go to the hospital, and that he had leased the property to Snuffer. He stated that he did not know that Snuffer was handling liquor He further stated that Snuffer "is up in Virginia where some of his family is sick, and as I understand it he is intending to come back here and plead guilty, * * * as it was his whisky." The defendant made no assertion that it was Snuffer's liquor in the presence of Snuffer and while the search warrant against Wren was being read to Wren, nor did the defendant deny that the liquor was his when the officers found it in the search which ensued. No witness was introduced to testify in the defendant's behalf. He denied his guilt. Further testimony of one of the officers as to whose place it was where the liquor was found is as follows:
1. While wholly circumstantial, the evidence was sufficient to authorize the jury to find that it excluded every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt. The cases cited in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error are clearly distinguishable by their particular facts from the instant case.
2. There is no merit in the special grounds of the motion for new trial. The overruling of the motion was not error.
Judgment affirmed.
On Motion for Rehearing.
With reference to ground 1, the plaintiff in error's attorney quoted the direct testimony of the witness Cawley as being: "Mr. Snuffer called some where over the phone, I don't know where, and Mr. Wren came down there while we were there." Counsel claims that the witness Cawley did not testify at that time that Snuffer called Wren, and that this court overlooked and misconstrued the record when we stated that Snuffer called Wren at that time over the phone. Counsel inadvertently has misquoted the testimony of Cawley, for Cawley's testimony--was that Mr. Snuffer called "Charlie Wren [Italics ours] some whereover the phone--I don't know where--and Mr. Wren came down there." In addition to this, when the witness Cawley was thereafter recalled as a witness, he testified: "On the date of the raid, Mr. Snuffer called Mr. Wren and he came there in about 10 minutes afterwards." There is no merit in this ground.
With reference to grounds 2 and 3 of the motion for rehearing, L. H. Wilkins, witness for the State, testified: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Home Indem. Co. v. Godley, 45090
...in its light most favorable to the prevailing party, for every presumption and inference is in favor of the verdict. Wren v. State, 57 Ga.App. 641, 644, 196 S.E. 146; Southern R. Co. v. Brock, 132 Ga. 858, 862, 64 S.E. 1083; Stapleton v. Amerson, 96 Ga.App. 471(5), 100 S.E.2d 628; Young Men......
-
Bradham v. State
...is bound to construe the evidence with every inference and presumption being in favor of upholding the jury's verdict. Wren v. State, 57 Ga.App. 641, 644, 196 S.E. 146; Mills v. State, 137 Ga.App. 305, 306, 223 S.E.2d 498. Where the testimony of the state and that of the defendant is in con......
-
Hogan v. City-County Hospital of LaGrange
...be solved in favor of upholding the verdict. See Calhoun v. Babcock Bros. Lumber Co., 199 Ga. 171, 176, 33 S.E.2d 430; Wren v. State, 57 Ga.App. 641, 644, 196 S.E. 146; Boatright v. Rich's, Inc., 121 Ga.App. 121(1), 173 S.E.2d 232. Further, once a verdict has been secured which has the appr......
-
Townsend v. State, 47424
...State, for every presumption and inference is in favor of the verdict. Bell v. State, 21 Ga.App. 788, 95 S.E. 270.' Wren v. State, 57 Ga.App. 641, 644, 196 S.E. 146, 148. This rule has been applied where the evidence is circumstantial. Wren v. State, supra p. 642, 196 S.E. 146; Hudgins v. S......