Edwards v. State

Decision Date29 July 1957
Citation6 McCanless 393,202 Tenn. 393,304 S.W.2d 500
PartiesJames EDWARDS v. STATE of Tennessee. 6 McCanless 393, 202 Tenn. 393, 304 S.W.2d 500
CourtTennessee Supreme Court

Looby & Williams, Nashville, for plaintiff in error.

Thomas E. Fox, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

TOMLINSON, Justice.

While State Highway Patrolman Morris was standing on the edge of State Highway No. 70 he was struck and instantly killed by an automobile then being driven by James Edwards, who was drunk. Edwards was convicted of murder in the second degree, and has appealed.

A homicide of this character, generally speaking, is either involuntary manslaughter, Keller v. State, 155 Tenn. 633, 299 S.W. 803, 59 A.L.R. 685, or second degree murder, Owen v. State, 188 Tenn. 459, 221 S.W.2d 515, and Rogers v. State, 196 Tenn. 263, 265 S.W.2d 559, dependent upon the facts of each particular case. It is insisted in behalf of Edwards that there are no facts in this case from which the jury could reasonably infer malice; therefore, that Edwards' offense is involuntary manslaughter. The theory of this insistence is that Edwards was so drunk at the time as not to know what he was doing; hence, that, necessarily, the element of malice is absent.

In a homicide case 'it is murder though the perpetrator was drunk. * * * Hence a party cannot show that he was so drunk as not to be capable of entertaining a malicious feeling. The conclusion of law is against him.' Atkins v. State, 119 Tenn. 458, 481-482, 105 S.W. 353, 359, 13 L.R.A.,N.S., 1031. Therefore, the question here is whether facts justifiably deducible from the evidence permit a finding by the jury of malice upon the part of Edwards.

At a point on State Highway No. 70 a short distance west of the corporate limits of the town of Lebanon, Patrolman Morris accompanied by a friend, Tommy Knowles, stopped for an official purpose a car driven east by soldier Sanford. When the soldier's car was brought to a stop its left rear wheel was thirteen inches south of the edge of the paved portion of the highway, and facing east, towards Lebanon. The car driven by patrolman Morris was parked behind it faced in the same direction and about the same distance from the paved portion of the highway. Knowles remained seated therein.

Patrolman Morris stood on the ground at the left front door of the soldier's car and examined his driver's license, etc. He had just returned these documents when there passed traveling towards Lebanon an automobile at a speed estimated at between 50 to 60 miles per hour.

It passed the patrol car 'with a great gust' at a speed which 'raised the side of it up'. It then struck and knocked patrolman Morris a distance of 45 feet east of the soldier's car. Before striking Morris, as Morris stood on the ground at the left front door of the soldier's automobile, Edwards' automobile scraped the left rear fender of the soldier's car and on up the body of the soldier's car to where the patrolman was standing. It necessarily, therefore, was traveling with its right wheels on the right shoulder of the highway since the left wheels of the soldier's car were thirteen and fourteen inches, respectively, over on that car's right hand shoulder of the road.

Edwards did not stop his car though he told the sheriff the next morning that he 'knew he hit something but didn't know what'.

Edwards was pursued by Knowles in the patrol car, but was unsuccessful in efforts to stop him, until he forced Edwards' car to the shoulder of the road. Edwards was so drunk that the officers doubt that he understood what was then being said. It was there that his wife said 'I tried to get you to stop and you wouldn't do it',--a remark to which Edwards made no response.

Since the court is permitted to know what the general public knows, it takes judicial knowledge of the fact that Highway No. 70 leading from Nashville to Lebanon and on east is a paved highway upon which traffic is very heavy. This highway from the point where Morris was struck is level for a distance west (towards Nashville) for more than a mile. It was from the west that Edwards was driving. The rear lights of the two parked automobiles, and the spot light of the patrol car, were burning. It was between 11 and 11:30 P.M.

Since no evidence was offered in behalf of Edwards other than in an unsuccessful effort to establish a reputation of sobriety, it is not known as to when Edwards began on this occasion to drink. It is permissible, however, to conclude (1) from the evidence of the character witnesses offered by him that he lived some where in the vicinity of Lebanon and (2) was thus returning to his home at the time he ran Morris down.

It is inconceivable that a man can get as drunk as Edwards was on that occasion without previously realizing that he would get in that condition if he continued to drink. But he did continue to drink and presumably with knowledge that he was going to drive his car back to, or close to, Lebanon over this heavily traveled highway. He knew, of course, that such conduct would be directly perilous to human life. From his conduct in so doing, it was permissible for the jury to imply 'such a high degree of conscious and willful recklessness as to amount to that malignity of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • O'Neil v. State
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals
    • March 13, 1970
    ...the defendant by the jury was within the limits allowed by law. This did not indicate passion, prejudice and caprice. Edwards v. State, 202 Tenn. 393, 304 S.W.2d 500.' The assignments are accordingly Fisher and Rathbone both contend the court erred in not granting their motion for a severan......
  • City of New Johnsonville v. Handley, No. M2003-00549-COA-R3-CV (TN 8/16/2005)
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • August 16, 2005
    ... ... After the transaction between the City and the Handleys had been concluded, the Comptroller of the Treasury for the State of Tennessee (the "Comptroller") conducted an investigation and audit of the City's records for a period spanning July 1, 1998, through March 31, ... ...
  • Hunter v. State
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • February 14, 1969
    ...allowed by the law, it cannot be said that their verdict indicated passion, prejudice or caprice upon their part. Edwards v. State, 202 Tenn. 393, 401, 304 S.W.2d 500; Ryall v. State, 204 Tenn. 422, 425, 321 S.W.2d All defendants were convicted of rape, the maximum penalty for which is deat......
  • Tooley v. State
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals
    • September 8, 1969
    ...there was no prejudice to the defendant by this part of the charge. See Ervin v. State, 196 Tenn. 459, 268 S.W.2d 351; Edwards v. State, 202 Tenn. 393, 304 S.W.2d 500. All assignments have been considered and they are The judgment of the lower court is affirmed. This case was heard and subm......
  • 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