Poythress v. State
Poythress v. the State
Opinion of the Court
Broyles, C. J.
The defendant was convicted of the offense of manufacturing whisky. The evidence disclosed that he was approaching a whisky still in the daytime, but that before he reached it the officers called to him and he ran and got away. As he ran he whistled and “hollered.” Soon afterwards the officers heard pojnpbpdy whistling; they whisfled back, and the defendant’s S9P *325 approached the still and was arrested. The still was about a mile from the defendant’s home and was not on his land. The State introduced documentary evidence showing that the defendant had previously been twice convicted, once for possessing whisky and once for transporting whisky. In the defendant’s statement to the jury he denied knowing anything about the still and said that he and his son were walking through the woods looking for lost hogs. Of course the jury had the right to reject his statement. However, the evidence was insufficient to authorize his conviction. In Griffin v. State, 2
534 (2) ( 58 S. E. 781 ), this court said: “Neither presence nor flight, nor both together, without more, is conclusive of guilt.” See also Foster v. State, 37
498 ( 140 S. E. 775 ). The court erred in overruling the general grounds of the motion for. new trial.
Judgment reversed.
Gardner, J., concurs. MacIntyre, J., dissents.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 5 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.