53 S.E.2d 216 | Ga. Ct. App. | 1949
Lead Opinion
It was reversible error for the trial court to admit, over objection, certain evidence as to the general reputation of the defendant.
2. This case went to the court as a whole for decision. In conference on the case the court discussed and considered Lee
v. State,
The judgment of the trial court overruling the motion for a new trial is
Reversed. Sutton, C. J., and Townsend, J., concur. Felton,J., concurs specially. MacIntyre, P. J., and Parker, J.,dissent.
Concurrence Opinion
I concur in the judgment for the additional reason that the testimony in question has no probative value on the question whether the defendant was guilty as charged. The testimony objected to was consistent with the theory that one or both of the defendant's boys might have caused the house to have the bad reputation.
Dissenting Opinion
"`In this State the husband is recognized by law as the head of his family, and, . . the legal presumption is that the house and all the household effects, including any intoxicating liquors, belong to the husband as the head of the family.'" Isom v. State,
In the instant case, the State should be allowed to show that the house in question bears the reputation in the community as a bootlegging house, on the theory that this was the defendant's house in which he was living as a member of the community, and that a person living in a community would hardly be ignorant of a condition which relates to his own affairs and which has become so public and notorious as to be a matter of common information. It is possible, through hardly probable, that such a course of conduct could habitually take place in a house in which a person is living as to call the attention of the community to its bootlegging character and so as to make it a matter of general reputation in the community without that person knowing something of its conduct. A person may not shut his eyes to what is going on around him for the purpose of avoiding knowledge and then defend upon the ground of his lack of knowledge. Harper v.State,
I am authorized to say that PARKER, J., concurs in this dissent.