(Syllabus.)
1. Appeal and Error — Review — Conviction Supported by Competent Evidence not Reversed. The jury are the exclusive judges of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony. This court will not reverse a conviction where there is any competent evidence in the record from which the jury could legitimately conclude that the defendant is guilty.
2. Trial — Refusal of Requested Instructions not Error Where Charge Sufficient. Where the instructions fairly state the law as applicable to the facts in the case, it is not error for the trial court to refuse requested instructions. Appeal from County Court, Choctaw County; N.C. Bonds, Judge. Dan Miller was convicted of possessing intoxicating liquor, and he appeals. Affirmed. Thomas Norman, for plaintiff in error. The Attorney General, for the State. CHAPPELL, J.
The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the county court of Choctaw county on a charge of having possession of 30 gallons of whisky, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $100 and confinement in the county jail for 30 days.
The evidence of the state was that the premises of the defendant were searched under a search warrant. No liquor was found on defendant's premises, but just across the road opposite from defendant's house 30 gallons of whisky were found on a sandy knoll. Fresh tracks led from defendant's house across the road and up to the liquor. There was a well-beaten path from defendant's house to the liquor, and a wide place by the side of the
Page 438
road in front of defendant's house indicating that cars had been frequently stopped there.
The court instructed the jury that the state relied for conviction upon circumstantial evidence. The instructions of the court fairly submitted the question of the guilt of the defendant under all the circumstances of the case to the jury. The defendant did not take the stand, and offered no evidence. There being competent evidence to support the verdict of the jury and the errors of law complained of being without merit, the cause is affirmed.
EDWARDS, P.J., and DAVENPORT, J., concur.