Chadwick v. State
| Decision Date | 10 December 1949 |
| Citation | 225 S.W.2d 52,189 Tenn. 256,25 Beeler 256 |
| Parties | , 189 Tenn. 256 CHADWICK v. STATE. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Dagley & Joyce, Wartburg, for plaintiff in error.
J. Malcolm Shull, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Defendant appeals from conviction on a charge of possessing whisky, with punishment fixed at a fine of $250 and sentence of ninety days in jail.
Sheriff R. E. Byrge testified that on November 8, 1947, pursuant to a search warrant, he searched a place of business in Morgan County, known as the 'Big Apple,' and found approximately 20 gallons of whisky in pints and fifths. Some of this whisky was labeled Old Thompson and some was labeled Calvert's. He testified that when the two men who were in the establishment appeared before the justice of the peace on the preliminary hearing, defendant appeared and 'tried to submit and pay off and said it was his whisky.'
Defendant testified that he lived in Roane County, three miles from the 'Big Apple'; that he never lived in Morgan County; that he had no interest in any kind of business in Morgan County as owner or operator, or otherwise; that he knew nothing about the raid until his son and his half brother advised him that evening, and asked him to go to Wartburg with them in an effort to settle the matter; that he did try to get the justice of the peace to let him pay off; that he did not remember whether he said the whisky was his; that he had loaned his half brother, Mr. Schrader, the money to buy this place and knew that he would have to pay the costs; that he was trying to strike the best bargain possible.
Defendant did not contradict the testimony of Sheriff Byrge that he voluntarily appeared before the justice of the peace and stated the whisky was his. He merely stated that he did not remember whether he made such an admission.
'The rule upon this subject, as announced by the later authorities, and the great weight of authority, is that, while the corpus delicti cannot be established by confessions alone, yet the confessions may be taken in connection with other evidence, direct or circumstantial, corroborating them, and, if from all of the evidence so considered together the corpus delicti and the guilt of the person with reference thereto is established beyond a reasonable doubt, it is the duty of the jury to convict. * * *
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Farmer v. State
...of guilt is based on testimonial or on circumstantial evidence. Ford v. State, 184 Tenn. 443, 450, 201 S.W.2d 539; Chadwick v. State, 189 Tenn. 256, 259, 225 S.W.2d 52; Liakas v. State, 199 Tenn. 298, 305, 286 S.W.2d Upon such a review, we think that plaintiff in error has failed to show th......
-
Robinson v. State
...S.W.2d 610, 612. The Crawford case appears to be at odds to the rule governing circumstantial evidence cases found in Chadwick v. State, 189 Tenn. 256, 225 S.W.2d 52; Ford v. State, 184 Tenn. 443, 451, 201 S.W.2d 539; Farmer v. State, 208 Tenn. 75, 343 S.W.2d 895; Jamison v. State, 209 Tenn......
-
Boshears v. State
...appellate review in circumstantial evidence cases, as here. See Ford v. State, 184 Tenn. 443, 451, 201 S.W.2d 539; Chadwick v. State, 189 Tenn. 256, 259, 225 S.W.2d 52; Farmer v. State, 208 Tenn. 75, 79, 343 S.W.2d 895; Jamison v. State, 209 Tenn. 426, 432, 354 S.W.2d 252; Gossett v. State,......
-
State v. Brown
...Farmer v. State, 208 Tenn. 75, 343 S.W.2d 895 (1961); Ford v. State, 184 Tenn. 443, 201 S.W.2d 539 (1949); Chadwick v. State, 189 Tenn. 256, 225 S.W.2d 52 (1949). The following quoted paragraph by Mr. Justice Felts in his opinion in Farmer v. State, supra, is an excellent summary of the two......