Campbell v. State

CourtSupreme Court of Tennessee
Writing for the CourtBURNETT
Citation384 S.W.2d 4,19 McCanless 95,215 Tenn. 95
Parties, 215 Tenn. 95 Bobby CAMPBELL v. STATE of Tennessee.
Decision Date12 November 1964

Page 4

384 S.W.2d 4
19 McCanless 95, 215 Tenn. 95
Bobby CAMPBELL
v.
STATE of Tennessee.
Supreme Court of Tennessee.
Nov. 12, 1964.

[215 Tenn. 96] R. D. Field, Greenville, for plaintiff in error.

George F. McCanless, Atty. Gen., Thomas E. Fox, Asst. Atty. Gen., Nashville, for the State.

BURNETT, Chief Justice.

Campbell was convicted of burglary and sentenced to serve four years in the penitentiary under this indictment. At the same time the burglary indictment was tried, he was tried and convicted of larceny under another[215 Tenn. 97] indictment and sentenced to serve two years in the State penitentiary. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Numerous assignments of error have been made, but since, after thoroughly considering this record and authorities, we have concluded the case must be reversed, we will not consider these assignments seriatim, but will proceed to the assignment and the error we feel is fatal to this judgment.

The assignment that must be sustained is that the trial judge committed error in permitting in evidence an extrajudicial statement made by Campbell amounting to a confession, because in taking this statement the officers did not comply with the Constitution of Tennessee nor with that of the United States on the question of self-incrimination.

A business house in Greeneville was broken into on October 12, 1963, at about midnight. Several items of property were taken. Another business house was likewise broken into on the same night, or at least the police were informed of it while investigating the previous burglary and a small amount of cash was taken in this latter burglary.

A number of articles with the name of the concern that had been burglarized were found in the home of the grandmother of Bobby Campbell on October 12. Bobby, his brother and another person were found about a quarter of a mile from the grandmother's home sitting in a car about 5:00 or 5:30 a. m. on the morning of October 12. Bobby was drunk when he was arrested and locked up. Later the officers went back to the grandmother's home and found hidden there several other items of [215 Tenn. 98] property taken from the place that had been burglarized, including a Notary's seal of an employee of this concern.

Campbell testified in his own behalf and he denied breaking into either of the places; he also testified that he had been at his aunt's home about 9:00 o'clock on the night

Page 6

in question and said he could remember nothing that he did between 10:00 o'clock on that night until about 1:00 o'clock the following morning because of being drunk. He also testified that he was placed in a dungeon in jail which was dirty and cold, and the only way he could drink his coffee was to bend a tobacco can and drink from this. He likewise said that he told the Chief of Police that he had committed these crimes because he was afraid of the Chief of Police, the Chief of Police having whipped him once or twice before.

It was shown in the record that the present counsel for Campbell went to the police station on Monday following this arrest on Sunday morning and requested to see Bobby Campbell, but on the first two occasions he was denied permission to see him, and then, when he went back the third time, the Chief of Police told him that he, the Chief of Police, would like to talk to Campbell first and to give him thirty minutes to do it and then the attorney could see him. This request by the Chief of Police to the attorney was granted by the attorney. It was during this thirty minute period while the Chief of Police talked to Campbell that the alleged confession was made. In this confession the defendant told how he broke into both places, which was corroborated by different officers, showing that a window had been broken and he entered through it and the use of a type of iron bar to pry open the machine where some money was taken, and by an employee of one of the companies who stated [215 Tenn. 99] he found a small piece of metal which indicated that it had come from the breaking of the machine, etc.

If the confession of this boy is admitted, it, along with the corroborating evidence, is sufficient for a conviction. The confession is supported by adequate corroborative evidence. If the confession is admissible the case cannot be reversed on its facts since the jury has resolved the conflicts of the testimony in favor of the State. Hargrove v. State, 199 Tenn. 25, 281 S.W.2d 692.

The Attorney General frankly admits that the question of whether or not this confession should have been submitted is a serious one, and, in effect, from the whole tenor of his brief feels that it warrants reversal. One of the officers on this question testifies: 'I believe that the Chief told him that if he wanted to tell the truth that when the case came up, naturally we'd tell the Attorney General if he made the statement, that he made the statement and that he cooperated, if he cooperated, or just what he done, but as far as any promises I don't know if we promised him anything.' This same officer on cross-examination admitted that in the preliminary hearing of the cause that he did tell the defendant it would certainly be to his, the defendant's, favor if he wanted to cooperate with the officers by talking about the two places burglarized.

The City Attorney who was present at the time the confession was made had this to say:

'There were no promises as such, the Chief didn't say, if you confess to this you will get three years instead of five. He did say this, the Court, the officers, and everybody else will treat you better if you confess than if we...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 practice notes
  • United States v. State of New Jersey, No. 14833
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • May 20, 1965
    ...State v. Dufour, 206 A.2d 82 (R.I.1965); State v. Hall, 397 P.2d 261, 268 (Idaho 1964) (opinion of McQuade, J.); Campbell v. State, 384 S.W. 2d 4 (Tenn.1964). The appellate courts of Illinois, People v. Hartgraves, 31 Ill.2d 375, 202 N.E.2d 33 (1964), cert. denied, 85 S.Ct. 1104 (1965); Mar......
  • Com. v. Negri
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • September 29, 1965
    ...L.Ed.2d 710 (1965); Oregon v. Neely, 395 P.2d 557 (Or.1964); Massachusetts v. McCarthy, 200 N.E.2d 264 (Mass.1964); Campbell v. Tennessee, 384 S.W.2d 4 (Tenn.1964); and, United States v. Guerra, 334 F.2d 138 (2d Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 936, 85 S.Ct. 337, 13 L.Ed.2d 346 Thus, the ......
  • Tate v. Trialco Scrap, Inc., No. 3-88-0593.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Tennessee
    • June 15, 1989
    ...expressed in Chazen since the lease also "stated that all right of recovery is waived for any loss resulting from fire." Id. 384 S.W.2d at 4. In particular, the Court focused on the words "all" and "any," concluding that this must include negligently started Th......
  • Lokos v. State, 2 Div. 463.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • November 18, 1965
    ...558; State v. McLeod, 1 Ohio St.2d 60, 203 N.E. 2d 349; Commonwealth v. Patrick, 416 Pa. 437, 206 A.2d 295; Campbell v. State (Tenn.), 384 S.W.2d 4; Ward v. Commonwealth, 205 Va. 564, 138 S.E.2d We do not think Escobedo requires a reversal of this case. Another case decided by the Supreme C......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
13 cases
  • United States v. State of New Jersey, No. 14833
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • May 20, 1965
    ...State v. Dufour, 206 A.2d 82 (R.I.1965); State v. Hall, 397 P.2d 261, 268 (Idaho 1964) (opinion of McQuade, J.); Campbell v. State, 384 S.W. 2d 4 (Tenn.1964). The appellate courts of Illinois, People v. Hartgraves, 31 Ill.2d 375, 202 N.E.2d 33 (1964), cert. denied, 85 S.Ct. 1104 (1965); Mar......
  • Com. v. Negri
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • September 29, 1965
    ...L.Ed.2d 710 (1965); Oregon v. Neely, 395 P.2d 557 (Or.1964); Massachusetts v. McCarthy, 200 N.E.2d 264 (Mass.1964); Campbell v. Tennessee, 384 S.W.2d 4 (Tenn.1964); and, United States v. Guerra, 334 F.2d 138 (2d Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 936, 85 S.Ct. 337, 13 L.Ed.2d 346 Thus, the ......
  • Tate v. Trialco Scrap, Inc., No. 3-88-0593.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Tennessee
    • June 15, 1989
    ...expressed in Chazen since the lease also "stated that all right of recovery is waived for any loss resulting from fire." Id. 384 S.W.2d at 4. In particular, the Court focused on the words "all" and "any," concluding that this must include negligently started Th......
  • Lokos v. State, 2 Div. 463.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • November 18, 1965
    ...558; State v. McLeod, 1 Ohio St.2d 60, 203 N.E. 2d 349; Commonwealth v. Patrick, 416 Pa. 437, 206 A.2d 295; Campbell v. State (Tenn.), 384 S.W.2d 4; Ward v. Commonwealth, 205 Va. 564, 138 S.E.2d We do not think Escobedo requires a reversal of this case. Another case decided by the Supreme C......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT