*1 373 and should not evidence be disturbed.
In reaching holding this conclusion we note that Moore, 101, 102 Mtg. Wachovia Co. v. 138 Ga. 460), been expressly disapproved has overruled Co., in F. D. I. C. Ivey-Matherly v. Const. 144 Ga. 313. rejection would allow the prima Wachovia facie market value by public established sale when the price realized is grossly the sale is inadequate accompanied by fruad, mistake, either misapprehension, surprise or other might circumstances which a finding that such circumstances contributed to bringing about the inadequacy price. That holding supported Stubbs, misapplication 228 Giordano Ga. 75, 165), which is not a confirmation sale case but is an equitable proceeding set aside the sale. The transmutation of the standard in the applied this, set aside a sale to a confirmation of sale action, undermines the intent legislature providing separate analysis of the value of the bid property apart from the sum at the public sale. See Davie Sheffield, App. 228, supra; Adams Bank, Gwinnett 233, (3), Commercial supra. Smith, affirmed.
Argued September Decided November Candler,
McCurdy H. George Carley, appellants. Preston, Allgood,
Preston & William Lee DENHAM v. 54633. THE STATE. Judge.
Shulman, Appellant was convicted of heroin. The state’s evidence was that jury an experienced narcotics young white saw neighborhood, black
predominantly
Because
man
car.
parked
driver’s seat of a
for other
called
the officer
seemed
the driver
had seen.
the car he
surveillance on
to maintain
officers
him that
thereafter,
informing
a call
he received
Shortly
it and
behind
got
in his direction. He
moving
*2
the car was
the identities
car and check
stop the
turned on his siren to
now a
that
there was
noticed
having
occupants,
was
car he drove
police
in
car. The
the
passenger
The witness
flashing
lights.
and had
unmarked
and motioned
turned on the siren
testified
when
over,
pas-
it accelerated. The
pull
the car in front to
around,
turned to-
turned
looked at the
senger
something
and
to stuff
began
ward the door window
The car
the window.
opening
the
the car door
blocks,
right
then made
for some four
continued
ahead
to
and
over
pulled
turn,
stop sign,
for a
stopping
without
who
witness,
other officers
assisted
curb. The
the
out of
occupants
the
stopped,
car had
arrived after the
he had
into which
space
into the
and looked
their vehicle
some
He saw
something.
stuffing
passenger
seen
to
out
panel
get
removed the door
plastic bags
stipulated
there.
was
he found
twelve small
was
were heroin
the contents
made
evidence, appellant
At
close of the state’s
driver.
He enumerates
of acquittal.
directed verdict
motion for a
agree.
and we
that motion
the denial of
as error
is cir-
appellant’s
guilt
1. The evidence
of
any
that he had
cumstantial. There is no direct evidence
(constructive
(possession)
knowledge
control
or even
The
direct evidence
only
of the contraband.
possession)
another
was
when
was that he looked
"To
crime,
police.
and fled from the
warrant
committed a
facts
proved
conviction on circumstantial
of
hypothesis
guilt,
shall
be consistent with
not
save
other reasonable
but shall exclude
§ 38-109.
Code Ann.
the accused.”
that of the
of
authority,
flight
at the scene of a crime
Presence
a conviction.
support
are not sufficient
to
together,
Griffin
(58
State,
781);
State,
Hodges
SE
App.
2 Ga.
858) (connection
(118
persons
with
SE2d
not
behavior,
flight
crime, suspicious
committing
conviction).
State,
Greeson v.
sufficient
to
See also
(226
(4)
769), affd.,
SE2d
State
324)
Greeson,
2. The state that Neal v. 130 Ga. argues 451) controls and us to hold that requires However, the evidence here was sufficient. the defendant there was arrested alone in front seat of a car while drugs plain where were view. Here the evidence shows appellant was a car in which a person possessed who heroin rode. The officer testified that ". passenger . . turned around in the . . seat. toward the car, outside and had toward street...” his back driver. That not sufficient to establish appellant’s knowledge the heroin. The evidence jury, though consistent with not sufficient guilt, was *3 to exclude every reasonable save that of the was, therefore, accused. error to deny appellant’s motion for directed verdict of acquittal. Webb, J., reversed. Smith and JJ, Deen, Banke, Birdsong, P. McMurray JJ., dissent. P. Quillian, not participating.
Argued Decided December October
Martin, Davidson, Kilpatrick Martin, Frank K. appellant.
E. Whisnant, Mullins District J. Attorney, Gray Conger, Assistant District Attorney, Judge, dissenting.
Banke, I cannot the evidence in this case did not agree appellant inference knew that was, all, heroin was in his He after automobile. companion next to his as the latter stuffed the 12 plastic car It defies reason window. activity. this oblivious to appellant
imagine the officer’s Furthermore, it appears only long enough evasive appellant whereupon completed, be the heroin to hiding process totality, these cir- in their the car. Viewed stopped at the than mere evidence more cumstances also evidence flight. They subsequent scene of a crime and the crime connection between a direct Greeson reason, vehicle. For this being committed are by majority cases cited and the other supra, inapposite.
I when construed find that appeal, to do on verdict, as we are required the jury’s than the other excludes reasonable fully verdict was jury’s Consequently, accused’s guilt. upheld. be authorized and should I Deen Presiding am authorized to state that Judge Judge McMurray join dissent.
54892. PHILLIPS v. CALDWELL et al. Deen, Presiding Judge. appeal
This is an from an affirmance superi- or of a finding by court the board of review against claimant Phillips benefits under the Em- seeking 54-6). (Code ployment Security Claimant, Law Ch. Hotel, Inc., chef at the Marriott Motor had submitted his. notice, resignation, giving offering two-week reason other than that it was caused by "extenuating circumstances.” At the eventual it became clear hearing pace he felt the of his work was his health to causing deteriorate; employer that due to a business slump had cut on personnel down both the number of and on *4 worked; hours the claimant’s overall although wages hád not in the 10 to his prior resignation decreased weeks he felt that he to do in 32 hours the expected work previously hours, which he had been allotted 40 and that A to make the same he had to an extra wages day. work objection letter introduced evidence without at a clinic claimant has physician county health states the