Davis v. State
| Decision Date | 11 July 1952 |
| Citation | 194 Tenn. 282,250 S.W.2d 534,30 Beeler 282 |
| Parties | DAVIS v. STATE. 30 Beeler 282, 194 Tenn. 282, 250 S.W.2d 534 |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Knox Bigham, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
R. R. Haggard, Waynesboro, for defendant.
Defendant Eunis Davis was convicted of involuntary manslaughter, with punishment fixed at five months in the county jail. The indictment grew out of an automobile accident in Wayne County on the afternoon of June 29, 1951 when the automobile driven by the defendant struck and killed Mrs. Bella Grossman, on Highway 64 about one mile east of Waynesboro on the road going toward Lawrenceburg. At the point where the collision took place, the road curves before crossing the bridge over Hurricane Creek. Mrs. Grossman had been visiting Mrs. John Prentice, the latter living on the right hand side of the road going toward Lawrenceburg and on the curve. According to Mrs. Prentice, the deceased descended the steps and when she reached the road, she started walking towards Waynesboro. Proof showed that Mrs. Grossman was on the shoulder of the road. The automobile driven by the defendant was going towards Lawrenceburg. The car left the road, went into a ditch on the right hand side and struck Mrs. Grossman, inflicting injuries which resulted in her death. After striking deceased, the automobile returned to the highway and continued on its way. Proof shows that the automobile was traveling about 65 miles an hour. Later in the afternoon, the officers found the automobile some distance from the scene of the accident. The right front wheel, which had been taken off, was flat. It seems that the defendant made an effort to escape and had run into the field from the house when the officers approached. One of the officers testified that he could smell the odor of beer or whiskey and another testified that he seemed to be under the influence of an intoxicant. This was two or three hours after the fatal accident. The highway patrolman testified that from the physical facts at the scene of the accident, the automobile evidently left the pavement and its right wheels entered the ditch some 66 feet west of where Mrs. Grossman was standing. The left wheels entered the ditch about 21 feet west of the impact. The highway patrolman expressed the opinion that the tire was punctured after the car passed the point where deceased was. This opinion was based upon an observation of the tracks. Proof shows that sometime after the collision, the defendant was interviewed and he stated that he had been drinking and was just driving too fast. At the trial he claimed that his right front tire blew out and this was the cause of the accident. He claims that he was badly frightened and drove the car to the place where it was abandoned. He further testified that he was not under the influence of an intoxicant and that he was not speeding or driving recklessly at the time of the accident. He stated that he did not have a driver's license and that his father had told him not to drive.
The principal insistence here is that the indictment is insufficient because it does not aver that there was any act done or committed by the defendant that would constitute driving recklessly. The second and third insistence is that the indictment failed to allege the speed at which the automobile was traveling and failed to describe the manner in which the automobile was being driven.
The indictment charges that the defendant 'did unlawfully drive a certain motor vehicle, to-wit: an automobile, along and over the public roads and highways of said County and State, recklessly, or at a speed, or in a manner so as to endanger or be likely to endanger life, limb or property of other persons; and while so unlawfully driving and operating said automobile upon said public roads and highways of said County and State, and as a direct and proximate result of such unlawful driving of the same, the said Eunis Davis drove said automobile into and against the body of one Bella Grossman, thereby inflicting grave and serious injuries to said Bella Grossman, as a direct and proximate result of which she soon thereafter died; and so the Grand Jurors aforesaid, upon their oaths aforesaid, do present and say that heretofore, to-wit: on the day and date aforesaid, in the County and State aforesaid, and in the manner and form aforesaid, the said Eunis Davis unlawfully and feloniously committed the crime of involuntary manslaughter upon the body of the said Bella Grossman.'
It will be seen that the defendant was accused of killing the deceased in such manner as to be guilty of involuntary manslaughter; that the killing was committed by driving the automobile and that the automobile was driven in such a manner as to violate Code Section 2681. The basis of the offense charged is the killing. The manner in which the killing was committed was by striking the deceased with an automobile being driven in an unlawful manner. This is the inducement to the real charge. Alexander v. State, 50 Tenn. 475.
In an indictment for murder it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Jefferson
...one count charges a defendant with only one offense although it charges different means, not repugnant, it is valid. See Davis v. State, 194 Tenn. 282, 250 S.W.2d 534; Griffin v. State, 109 Tenn. 17, 70 S.W. 61. This indictment charges the defendant with one offense, the first degree murder......
-
State v. Randolph
...and relied upon by the State are: Grindstaff v. State, 214 Tenn. 58, 377 S.W.2d 921 (1964) (driving while drowsy); Davis v. State, 194 Tenn. 282, 250 S.W.2d 534 (1952) (driving while intoxicated) and Griffin v. State, 578 S.W.2d 654 (Tenn.Crim.App.1978) (same). The early case of Tarvers v. ......
-
Jones v. State
...State v. Cameron, 50 Tenn 86; Millner v. State, 83 Tenn. 181; State v. Stephens, 127 Tenn. 285, 154 S.W. 1149.' In Davis v. State, 194 Tenn. 282, 286, 250 S.W.2d 534, 535, it is 'In an indictment for murder it is unnecessary to state the manner or means by which the death was caused. It is ......
-
State v. Wallace
...529 S.W.2d 674, 678 (Tenn. 1975), overruled on other grounds by State v. Mitchell, 593 S.W.2d 280, 286 (Tenn. 1980); Davis v. State, 250 S.W.2d 534, 535 (Tenn. 1952); Griffin v. State, 70 S.W. 61, 61-62 (Tenn. 1902); State v. Edward Jerome Harbison, No E2017-00520-CCA-R3-CD, 2018 WL 674002,......