Bates v. Commonwealth

3 Citing cases

  1. Eaves v. Commonwealth

    43 S.W.2d 528 (Ky. Ct. App. 1931)   Cited 8 times

    On this issue the court gave to the jury an instruction substantially advising it that if it believed from the evidence the whisky was not in the possession of appellant, but was in the possession of Curtis Eaves, and that she did not know the whisky was on her premises, it should acquit her. This instruction fully protected her in this respect. Kratzer v. Com., 228 Ky. 684, 15 S.W.2d 473; Keifner v. Com., 225 Ky. 163, 7 S.W.2d 1066; Bates v. Com., 218 Ky. 237, 292 S.W. 315. Perceiving no error prejudicial to the substantial rights of appellant, the judgment is affirmed.

  2. Wells v. Commonwealth

    299 S.W. 975 (Ky. Ct. App. 1927)   Cited 5 times

    Not only so, but one is not necessarily in possession of intoxicating liquor that is on his premises with his knowledge, for it may be under the control of another, and may be brought on the premises over the objection and protest of the owner. Bates v. Commonwealth, 218 Ky. 737, 292 S.W. 315. It follows that instruction No. 2 should not have been given. Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial consistent with this opinion.

  3. Vinson v. Commonwealth

    293 S.W. 984 (Ky. Ct. App. 1927)   Cited 4 times

    But without such legislative enactment we have been unable to find any authority that the court should indulge any such presumption. See case of Jesse Bates v. Commonwealth, 218 Ky. 737, 292 S.W. 315. The above excerpt from the instruction is also erroneous, because it required the jury to believe from the evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" the facts necessary to repel the presumption of possession that the court submitted to the jury.