held that defendant waived right to appeal a search and seizure issue because he testified that the drug capsule found in his car was purchased under a doctor’s prescription
How later courts described this case
- held that defendant waived right to appeal a search and seizure issue because he testified that the drug capsule found in his car was purchased under a doctor’s prescription
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Galbreath, J.,
(dissenting).
I must respectfully dissent.
The defendant in this case explained where he lawfully obtained the drugs and why he hid them. He had both a legal right to purchase the drugs and a right to hide them. The burden was upon the State to prove that he *663 came by t-lie drags in an unlawful manner. This it did not do.
There can be no presumption of guilt in a criminal prosecution in this State. The inferences suggested by the furtive manner in which the defendant sought to conceal his possession of drugs could not, and did not, in my opinion overcome both the presumption of innocence and his clear, logical, credible, and most importantly, undisputed testimony of how he came into legal possession of the medication. Or, as the Supreme Court stated recently :
“As to presumptions, it is settled law that while they may be indulged in criminal cases, this cannot be done to deprive the defendant of the presumption of innocence as was done in this case.
“In Marie v. State, 204 Tenn. 197 , 319 S.W.2d 86 , presumptions are discussed, and it is said that a presumption is a substitute for evidence which, in the absence of direct evidence conflicting, requires as a matter of law that a certain fact conclusion be accepted or proved by the jury. In this case, Underhill’s Criminal Evidence, 5th Ed., is quoted with approval as saying:
‘ * ‘ So, though the decisions are not harmonious, the better and more reasonable view is that the law will not countenance any presumption, which by overcoming the presumption of innocence will cast the burden of proving his innocence upon the defendant. ’ Sec. 43, p. 66.” Liming v. State, 220 Tenn. 371 , 417 S.W.2d 769 .
*664 I would liold that the weak, circumstantial evidence in this case correctly summarized in the majority opinion did not approach in weight the direct testimony of the defendant and failed to overcome the presumption of innocence. Since the evidence appears to me to preponderate against the verdict of the jury, I would reverse the conviction and dismiss.