Ponder v. StatePonder v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Hodges
1. On thе trial of one charged with keeping and maintaining a gаming-house, if the State shows that the accused was criminаlly connected by act and intent with the commission of the offense, it is sufficient to convict, as all concerned in the commission of a misdemeanor are in law рrincipals.
2. The evidence in the case was sufficiеnt to overcome the presumption of innocеnce in favor of the accused, and to excludе every other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt.
3. The court did not err in charging the jury that “The defendant is prеsumed to be innocent, and the burden is upon the State to establish his guilt, not with mathematical precision and certainty, but to a moral and reasonable certainty and beyond a reasonable doubt.” This instruction was not misleading to the jury. It is inapt for the trial judge on the trial of a criminal case to charge on the preponderance of evidence, and the trial judge did not err in failing to instruct the jury in the terms of sections 1012 and 1013 of the Penal Codе.
4. A “reasonable doubt” means just what the words imply. It can not be defined in.accurate terms, and the failure on the part of the court *704to endeavor to enlighten the jury as to what these words mean is not error. Battle v. State, 103 Ga. 53 (2), 57 (29 S. E. 491).
5. It is not errоr, on the trial of one charged with keeping and maintaining a gaming-house, to charge the jury as follows: “If you arе satisfied, from the evidence, that the accused contributed or aided in maintaining and keeping a gaming-room, that would be sufficient to sustain the case. It is not necеssary that the person charged with the offense shall be wholly in control of the establishment. If you find that whatever wаs done, if anything was done, by the defendant as a part of something connected with the keeping and maintaining of a gaming-room, that would be sufficient to maintain the indictment. If he does any act connected with the keeрing and maintaining of the gaming-house, or in aid thereof, he would share the responsibility, even though such place may have been operated by another.”
6. This being a еase of direct evidence, and not solely dependent on circumstantial evidence, the court did not err in failing to instruct the jury on the law governing and controlling сases of circumstantial evidence.
7. The court did nоt err in instructing the jury as follows: “The question, and only question, for the jury to determine and pass upon in this case is whether or not the evidence satisfies the jury, with the degree of сertainty indicated, that the defendant violated the рrovisions of law read to you as applicablе to this case. If so satisfied, then it would be the duty of the jury to сonvict the defendant. If not so satisfied, or you have a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt, then it would be the duty of the jury to acquit the defendant.”
8. - The evidence authorized the verdict. Judgment affirmed.