Elrod v. State, 196 S.E.2d 360 (Ga. Ct. App. 1973). · Go Syfert
Search
Elrod v. State, 196 S.E.2d 360 (Ga. Ct. App. 1973). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
80 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Kenneth Hinton v. State (gactapp, 2013-03-25)
Treatment trajectory · 1974 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1974 2000 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 20 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kenneth Hinton v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
Because there also was evidence other than Hinton’s ownership of the automobile connecting him with the crimes, however, including the fact that the victim’s description of one of the perpetrators matched Hinton’s physical characteristics, this was sufficient to sustain the presumption.12 “Where there is evidence other than ‘equal access’ connecting an accused to contraband, it is for the jury to determine guilt or innocence.”13 10 Elrod v. State, 128 Ga. App. 250, 251 (1) ( 196 SE2d 360 ) (1973). 11 Id. 12 Id at 251 (3). 13 (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Fears v. State, 16…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hughes v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1994 · confidence medium
Shepherd v. State, 77 Ga. App. 857 ( 50 SE2d 111 ).’ Elrod v. State, 128 Ga. App. 250, 251 ( 196 SE2d 360 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Montgomery v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1992 · confidence medium
This is because evidence of equal access prevents a presumption of possession from arising based on ownership or control of premises (Bell v. State, 198 Ga. App. 874 ( 403 SE2d 864 )), for such a presumption arises only “[i]n the absence of any circumstances to the contrary.” Elrod v. State, 128 Ga. App. 250, 251 ( 196 SE2d 360 ).
examined Cited as authority (rule) McBride v. State (4×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1987 · confidence medium
It also provided defendant with a list of witnesses, but the name of the victim of the prior incident was not on it. "[T]he statute `must be subject to reasonable interpretation' ( Elrod v. State, 128 Ga. App. 250, 252 ( 196 SE2d 360 ) (1973)) and if, under the circumstances, the purposes of the statute were met, or if the relief sought exceeded the relief sufficient to satisfy those purposes, or if the error was harmless, reversal was not required even though the unlisted witness was allowed to testify in contravention of the statute. [Cits.]" Huff v. State, 141 Ga. App. 66 (1), 67 ( 232 SE2d…
examined Cited as authority (rule) Fears v. State (4×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1983 · confidence medium
Thus, Cody had not been in Fears’ cab since he picked it up on that day and Fears also testified that he did not get the same cab every day. “ ‘In the absence of any circumstances to the contrary, a presumption arises from proof of ownership and control of premises, an automobile, or other property that the owner is in control and possession of contraband found therein.’ Elrod v. State, 128 Ga. App. 250, 251 (1) ( 196 SE2d 360 ).” (Emphasis supplied.) Hawkins v. State, 141 Ga. App. 31 (1) ( 232 SE2d 377 ); accord: Walker v. State, 140 Ga. App. 418, 419 ( 231 SE2d 386 ); Moore v. Stat…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Speight v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1981 · confidence medium
See also Moore v. State, 155 Ga. App. 149, 150-151 (1) ( 270 SE2d 339 ); Autry v. State, 150 Ga. App. 584, 586 ( 258 SE2d 268 ); Bradley v. State, 137 Ga. App. 670, 671 (1) ( 224 SE2d 778 ); Person v. State, 155 Ga. App. 106, 107 ( 270 SE2d 319 ); Elrod v. State, 128 Ga. App. 250, 251 (1) ( 196 SE2d 360 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Prickett v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1980 · confidence medium
“In the absence of any circumstances to the contrary, a presumption arises from proof of ownership and control of premises, an automobile, or other property that the owner is in control and *669 possession of contraband found therein. [Cits.] As to automobiles, the rule does not apply where there is evidence in the case that the defendant had not been in possession of the vehicle for a period of time prior to the discovery of the contraband or that others have had access to it.” Elrod v. State, 128 Ga. App. 250, 251 ( 196 SE2d 360 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Moore v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1980 · confidence medium
Autry v. State, 150 Ga. App. 584, 586 (2) ( 258 SE2d 268 ); Hawkins v. State, 141 Ga. App. 31 (1) ( 232 SE2d 377 ); Bradley v. State, 137 Ga. App. 670, 671 (1) ( 224 SE2d 778 ) cert. denied 429 U. S. 918 ; Elrod v. State, 128 Ga. App. 250, 251 (1) ( 196 SE2d 360 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Farmer v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1979 · confidence medium
The correct rule of constructive possession of contraband found in a vehicle owned or being driven by an accused has been often stated, Davis v. State, 146 Ga. App. 629 ( 247 SE2d 210 ); Elrod v. State, 128 Ga. App. 250, 251 ( 196 SE2d 360 ); Shepherd v. State, 77 Ga. App. 857, 858 ( 50 SE2d 111 ).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Davis v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1978 · confidence medium
Shepherd v. State, 77 Ga. App. 857 (50 SE2d 111).”Elrod v. State, 128 Ga. App. 250, 251 ( 196 SE2d 360 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Huff v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1977 · confidence medium
This court, however, has consistently refused to do so, holding rather that the statute "must be subject to reasonable interpretation” (Elrod v. State, 128 Ga. App. 250, 252 ( 196 SE2d 360 ) (1973)) and if, under the circumstances, the purposes of the statute were met, or if the relief sought exceeded the relief sufficient to satisfy those purposes, or if the error was harmless, reversal was not required even though the unlisted witness was allowed to testify in *67 contravention of the statute.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hawkins v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1977 · confidence medium
"In the absence of any circumstances to the contrary, a presumption arises from proof of ownership and control of premises, an automobile, or other property that the owner is in control and possession of contraband found therein.” Elrod v. State, 128 Ga. App. 250, 251 (1) ( 196 SE2d 360 ) (1973).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Walker v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1976 · confidence medium
"In the absence of any circumstances to the contrary, a presumption arises from proof of ownership and control of premises, an automobile, or other property that the owner is in control and possession of contraband found therein. [Cits.]” Elrod v. State, 128 Ga. App. 250, 251 (1) ( 196 SE2d 360 ) (1973).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Clark v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1976 · confidence medium
"This statute must be subject to a reasonable interpretation,” (Elrod v. State, 128 Ga. App. 250, 252 (2) ( 196 SE2d 360 )), and the doctrine of harmless error is applicable to it.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Gibbons v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1975 · confidence medium
See also Caito v. State, 130 Ga. App. 831, 836 (7) ( 204 SE2d 765 ); Elrod v. State, 128 Ga. App. 250, 251 (2) ( 196 SE2d 360 ). 2.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Donaldson v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1975 · confidence medium
Elrod v. State, 128 Ga. App. 250, 251 ( 196 SE2d 360 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kitchens v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1975 · confidence medium
And see Elrod v. State, 128 Ga. App. 250, 251 (2) ( 196 SE2d 360 ), where it was held that§ 27-1403 must be given a reasonable interpretation, and that although the evidence complained of was "not exactly 'newly discovered,’ ” it was "sufficiently within the spirit of the statute not to require a reversal of the case.” Argued November 6, 1974 Decided February 21, 1975.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Harmon v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1975 · confidence medium
Accord: Code Ann. § 27-1403; Butler v. State, 226 Ga. 56, 58 (4) (172 SE2d 399); Butts v. State, 126 Ga. App. 512, 513 (1) ( 191 SE2d 329 ); Vinson v. State, 127 Ga. App. 607, 608 (2) ( 194 SE2d 583 ); Elrod v. State, 128 Ga. App. 250, 251 (2) ( 196 SE2d 360 ); Moye v. State, 129 Ga. App. 52, 53 (1) (198 SE2d 514); Brown v. State, 129 Ga. App. 713, 715 (3) ( 200 SE2d 924 ).
discussed Cited "see" Anderson v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1977 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord, Elrod v. State, 128 Ga. App. 250, 252 ( 196 SE2d 360 ).
discussed Cited "see" Elrod v. Ault (2×)
Ga. · 1974 · signal: see · confidence high
See Elrod v. State, 128 Ga. App. 250 ( 196 SE2d 360 ).
Elrod
v.
the State
47914.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Feb 19, 1973.
196 S.E.2d 360
Weiner & Bazemore, Paul S. Weiner, for appellant., William H. Ison, District Attorney, J. W. Bradley, for appellee.
Deen, Bell, Quillian.
Cited by 33 opinions  |  Published
Deen, Judge.

On the night of February 26, 1971, police pursuing an automobile involved in traffic violation found it abandoned at the end of a street blocked by a ditch. The driver had fled leaving the keys in the car. Various articles of personal property recently stolen[*251] from a nearby home were found inside. The ownership of the car was quickly traced to the defendant who had purchased it the previous December 20. Further investigation revealed that the defendant had without notice suddenly quit his job and left the state, after requesting an acquaintance to return a company truck in his possession and forward his pay check. The witness could not remember when the defendant’s note making this request was received except that "it was in the wintertime ... in January or February.” Elrod was eventually arrested in another county and returned for trial. He produced no evidence and made an unsworn statement denying guilt, but he did not deny ownership or possession of the automobile and made no attempt to explain its summary abandonment. He appeals from a verdict of guilty. Held:

1. In the absence of any circumstances to the contrary, a presumption arises from proof of ownership and control of premises, an automobile, or other property that the owner is in control and possession of contraband found therein. Arnold v. State, 85 Ga. App. 366 (2 b) (69 SE2d 615); Derricott v. State, 75 Ga. App. 703 (44 SE2d 303); Watson v. State, 93 Ga. App. 368 (1) (91 SE2d 832); Horne v. State, 93 Ga. App. 345 (4) (91 SE2d 824). As to automobiles, the rule does not apply where there is evidence in the case that the defendant has not been in possession of the vehicle for a period of time prior to the discovery of the contraband or that others have had access to it. Shepherd v. State, 77 Ga. App. 857 (50 SE2d 111).

2. Code Ann. § 27-1403 provides: "Without the consent of the defendant, no witness shall be permitted to testify for the State whose name does not appear upon the list of witnesses as furnished to the defendant unless the solicitor or prosecuting attorney shall state in his place that the evidence sought to be presented is newly discovered evidence which the State was not aware of[*252] at the time of its furnishing the defendant with a list of the witnesses.” This statute must be subject to a reasonable interpretation. In Mitchell v. State, 226 Ga. 450 (3) (175 SE2d 545) it was held not error to allow a witness to testify where the district attorney stated in his place that this witness had on the day before the trial volunteered new information he did not know of before that time. Here the prosecuting attorney stated in his place that he had been assured by a witness that the bill of sale of the automobile in question, to the defendant was the original document; that he only obtained it just before the trial, realized it was not the original, but a copy bill of sale, and thereupon called the seller to the stand to prove the transaction. This witness testified in effect only that the copy bill of sale correctly delineated the transfer. While such evidence is not exactly "newly discovered” we believe it to be sufficiently within the spirit of the statute not to require a reversal of the case.

Submitted February 6, 1973 — Decided February 19, 1973. Weiner & Bazemore, Paul S. Weiner, for appellant. William H. Ison, District Attorney, J. W. Bradley, for appellee.

3. The stolen goods having been found in an automobile owned by the defendant and abandoned in the course of a police chase, plus the sudden disappearance of the defendant and the absence of any circumstances which might offer an explanation consistent with his innocence are sufficient to authorize the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, C. J., and Quillian, J., concur.