Younger v. State
| Decision Date | 04 May 1960 |
| Citation | 10 McCanless 588,206 Tenn. 588,335 S.W.2d 828 |
| Parties | , 206 Tenn. 588 R. C. YOUNGER v. STATE of Tennessee. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
H. T. Etheridge, Jr., Jackson, for R. C. Younger.
Thomas E. Fox, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Defendant below Younger was convicted of possessing intoxicating liquor and his punishment fixed at 60 days in jail and a $500 fine. He appealed in error and insists that the evidence preponderates against the verdict of guilt and in favor of his innocence.
Defendant was operating a restaurant, located on the north side of U. S. Highway 70 a few miles east of Jackson, and he and his wife were living in a dwelling to the rear of his restaurant. On the day in question, the officers, a constable and two members of the Highway Patrol, with a search warrant, searched his restaurant and his dwelling house, and found no intoxicating liquor and no evidence of any such liquor.
After the officers had failed to find any evidence of any intoxicating liquor in his restaurant or his house, the constable went over a fence onto a vacant lot where he found hidden in the weeds nine half pints of Old Crow, bottled in bond, whiskey. The whiskey was near a public dump and between defendant's house and the El Rancho night club. This vacant lot was not in possession or control of defendant but was accessible from the nearby Watson Road, which ran behind the El Rancho night club and defendant's dwelling house.
There was no evidence, testimonial or circumstantial, tending to prove that this whiskey belonged to defendant except the circumstance that it was somewhat nearer to the rear of his dwelling than to the El Rancho night club. But the evidence did not negative the probability that the liquor might have belonged to someone else. As soon as the officers told him they had found the liquor, he at once disclaimed any ownership or knowledge of it.
He testified that the whiskey did not belong to him and he had no knowledge that it was hidden there. He was not contradicted by any other witness or impeached by cross-examination. Nor was there any evidence that he had ever before been accused of violating the liquor law.
It is the rule in this State that where intoxicating liquor is found on premises in possession of the accused, there arises a presumption that he is the owner of such liquor, and this presumption prevails unless rebutted by him; and the burden is upon the defendant, appealing from a conviction, to show that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taylor v. Taylor
... ... , we are asked to reverse an order by the trial court prohibiting the custodial parent in this case, Deborah Taylor Mitten, from moving out of state with her three-year-old daughter, Brittney, over the objection of the non-custodial parent, David Steve Taylor. The resolution of this dispute ... ...
-
Headrick v. State
...193, 443 S.W.2d 457; Turner v. State, 216 Tenn. 714, 394 S.W.2d 635; Hatchett v. State, 208 Tenn. 399, 346 S.W.2d 258; Younger v. State, 206 Tenn. 588, 335 S.W.2d 828; Whited v. State, Tenn.Cr.App., 483 S.W.2d But in this case there is no room for that presumption because, as noted, protest......
-
Davidson v. State
...that the defendant came into possession of the liquor since 1917 (Chapter 12, Public Acts of 1917). See likewise Younger v. State, 206 Tenn. 558, 335 S.W.2d 828; and Turner v. State, 216 Tenn. 714, 394 S.W.2d After a thorough consideration, as said above, of this matter we are convinced tha......
-
Evans v. State
...possession, the burden is upon him to rebut the presumption. Lampley v. State, 196 Tenn. 534, 536, 268 S.W.2d 572; Younger v. State, 206 Tenn. 588, 335 S.W.2d 828. But while the fact of ownership of realty, a building or house, may raise a presumption of possession in its owner, still such ......