Chaffin v. State

• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: PREWITT
• Citation: Chaffin v. State, 209 Tenn. 590, 354 S.W.2d 772, 13 McCanless 590 (Tenn. 1962)
• Decision Date: 07 March 1962
• Parties: , 209 Tenn. 590 Joe CHAFFIN v. STATE of Tennessee.

Page 772

354 S.W.2d 772

13 McCanless 590, 209 Tenn. 590

Joe CHAFFIN v. STATE of Tennessee.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

March 7, 1962.

Turner & Turner, Carthage, Maddux & Cameron, Cookeville, for plaintiff in error.

George F. McCanless, Atty. Gen., Thomas E. Fox, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

PREWITT, Chief Justice.

Plaintiff in error, Joe Chaffin, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was convicted of voluntary mansalaughter and sentenced to serve three (3) years in the State Prison.

The record presents three assignments of error.

1. The evidence preponderates against the verdict and in favor of the innocence of the accused.

2. The trial judge refused to permit witnesses offered by the defendant to testify that the deceased had a reputation of carrying a pistol; defendant was not permitted to prove deceased was quarrelsome, desperate and revengeful by showing specific acts of that nature toward third persons; and defendant was not permitted to show that deceased had been involved in disputes over the boundary lines with other adjacent land owners which resulted in threats against them by the defendant.

3. The trial judge permitted the State to make exhibits to the rebuttal testimony of a State's witness, a court decree, a will, and a deed.

The proof discloses that the deceased, Bush, was shot three times on March 18, 1961, which resulted in his immediate death.

It appears that the defendant and his uncle owned a farm adjacent to a farm owned by the deceased. A boundary line dispute had existed between them for some time. The defendant had been carrying a pistol for eleven months prior to the event in question when he went on that portion of the farm he owned with his uncle near the boundary line with the deceased's farm.

Deceased had the boundary line surveyed and at the time he was killed he was engaged in the erection of a fence on what defendant considered to be a part of the farm owned by him and his uncle.

There is considerable proof to show that the deceased had made violent threats toward the defendant, that he had said he would fence his property or kill anyone who tried to interfere, and that he carried a pistol for that purpose.

We think the preponderance of the evidence indicates the deceased was somewhat contentions and unreasonable about the boundary line dispute, and character witnesses offered by the defendant tended to show that deceased was a man with a violent disposition, while on the other hand, the State introduced several character witnesses tending to show to the contrary.

On the day before the homicide, the defendant had stopped by deceased's home and talked to deceased about not erecting the fence between their land until defendant had an opporunity to have it surveyed.

Defendant testified that the deceased had agreed to allow him thirty days for that purpose.

The defendant testified that the deceased had told him on that day 'I was aiming to fence and says I am starting and said I am going to fence if I have to kill everybody involved.'

The following morning, the date of the homicide, the defendant with his younger brother, went to the place where the boundary line was in dispute for the purpose of determining how far deceased was encroaching upon defendant and defendant's uncle's property. Defendant carried a pistol with him.

Defendant had been there the day before and noticed that a wire which has been considered to be the fence between the two farms had been taken down and rolled up by the deceased. As defendant and his brother approached the scene they heard deceased erecting the fence. Defendant called to the deceased. Deceased made no response to this call but when defendant called the second time, after approaching a little nearer to the deceased, the deceased replied, 'G___ d___ it, I heard you the first time.'

Defendant reminded the deceased of his promise not to fence at that time. Then, according to the defendant's testimony, deceased admonished the defendant, 'If you don't get the hell out of here, you are going to get your killing.'

The deceased walked past the defendant, set his sledge hammer against a fence post, dropped his claw hammer he was holding in his hand, and reached for his right pocket, whereupon the defendant took from his pocket the pistol he was carrying and shot the deceased.

Defendant testified that deceased was about twenty-five feet from him when the homicide occurred. No pistol was found on the deceased after his death and he had no weapon other...