Chadwick v. State

• Decision Date: 14 November 1966
• Citation: 409 S.W.2d 367,219 Tenn. 296,23 McCanless 296
• Parties: , 219 Tenn. 296 Bobby CHADWICK, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE of Tennessee, Defendant in Error.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

Page 367

409 S.W.2d 367

23 McCanless 296, 219 Tenn. 296

Bobby CHADWICK, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE of Tennessee, Defendant in Error.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

Nov. 14, 1966.

Bill B. Moss, Cleveland, Finnell & Thompson, Cleveland, of counsel, for plaintiff in error.

George F. McCanless, Atty. Gen., Robert F. Hedgepath, Asst. Atty. Gen., Mashville, and James P. Watkins, Dist. Atty. Gen., Madisonville, prosecuted case for State in trial court, for defendant in error.

OPINION

DYER, Justice.

Plaintiff in error, Bobby Chadwick, appeals from a conviction of grand larceny for which he was been sentenced to serve from three to ten years in the State Penitentiary. In this opinion plaintiff in error will be referred to as defendant.

On the night of 3 February 1965 the home of William Paul Keasler in Bradley County, Tennessee was broken into and a collection of guns stolen. Defendant and one, Luther Swallows, Jr., were jointly indicted for this crime. The State obtained a severance as to Luther Swallows, Jr. and the case at bar involves only the defendant. Luther Swallows, Jr. testified as a witness for the State and at the time was an inmate of the State Penitentiary serving time for other crimes that the one charged in this indictment. This fact, of Swallows being a convict, was made known to the jury. The witness Swallows testified he and defendant broke into the Keasler home through a back door and removed therefrom a collection of guns about thirty six in number and being shotguns, rifles and pistols. He testified he kept all but five which defendant took with him. This witness testified among the firearms kept by defendant were a .22 pistol, a .45 pistol and a .410 gauge shotgun.

Defendant, while confined in the county jail, had a conversation with Amos Burnette a policeman with the City of Cleveland, Tennessee. As a result of this conversation defendant was released, without bond, from the county jail for several hours. Defendant, during these several hours away from jail, called Officer Burnette, via telephone, and told him he had recovered one of the guns and would send it to the jail by J. B. Swallows a brother of the witness, Luther Swallows, Jr. As result of this telephone conversation this gun was delivered to the jail and identified as one taken from the home of Mr. Keasler.

Counsel for defendant, under T.C.A. § 40--2441, made request of the District Attorney General to be furnished with a copy of any written confession or admission made by defendant and a list of names of persons present when any admission or confession was made orally by defendant. The District Attorney General did not respond. Error is assigned to admission into evidence of certain statements made by defendant on the ground this statute applied to these statements and, since same was not complied with, the statements were not admissible.

Error is alleged to certain statements against interest made by defendant to Paul Keasler and Luther Swallows and introduced into evidence by their testimony. T.C.A. § 40--2441 applies only to admissions or confessions made 'before any law enforcement officer or agency in this state.' The word 'before' as used in this statute also means 'to' any law enforcement officer or agency in this state. The witnesses Keasler and Swallows are not in any category designated by this statute and any statements against interest made to them by defendant would be admissible in evidence without compliance with this statute.

William Paul Keasler testified to a conversation he had with defendant which in substance was: that if the charges against defendant were dropped he (defendant) would help get the guns 'cleaned up and everything.'

Error is alleged to certain statements against interest made by defendant to Officer Burnette and introduced into evidence by his testimony. Statements against interest made to this witness, an officer, would come within the purview of this statute. Defendant objects to the testimony of Officer Burnette to the effect defendant, while on release from jail, had called him and told him he (defendant) had recovered one of Mr. Keasler's guns and would send it up by J. B. Swallows. Under the evidence in this record this statement was an admission against interest. Since the District Attorney General had not complied with T.C.A. § 40--2441 the admission of this...