Holmes v. StateHolmes v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Pottle
Tbе trial judge erred in permitting the State to . prove thаt the accused had been living in a state of adultеry with a named woman. We, dо not see how this conduсt of the accused, although unlawful, could illustrate the question of his guilt or innocеnce of the offensе of selling intoxicating liquor. It wаs error to charge that, if the accused had intoxicating liquor’ at. his plaсe of business, this was a circumstance from which the jury might infer that he was guilty of selling it. It has been often held by this court that the possession of ‘аn unusual quantity of liquors might authorize the inference that they were being kept for аn illegal purpose; but it has never been held that the mere possession of liquor, in any quantity or at any рlace, was a circumstance from which the jury might infеr that the poséessor hаd already been guilty of sеlling it. It was competent tо introduce in evidencе th‘e bottles of whisky found in the house of the accusеd where the ‘alleged sale had taken place. This evidence, of itself alone, was worth little, but, tаken in connection with the *360testimony as to the sale, it might have some corroborative value. Mere opportunity to commit a crime is of itself no evidence of guilt, but proof. of opportunity may sometimes corroborаte other evidence of guilt. The error in charging, and in admitting testimony,-above referred to, was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial. Judgment reversed.