Franklin v. State

• Decision Date: 08 May 1943
• Parties: FRANKLIN v. STATE.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

171 S.W.2d 281

180 Tenn. 41

FRANKLIN v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

May 8, 1943

Error to Circuit Court, Gibson County; W. W. Bond, Judge.

James Franklin was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, and he brings error.

Affirmed.

Martin Exum, of Jackson, for plaintiff in error.

Nat Tipton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

CHAMBLISS Justice.

This is an appeal from a conviction of voluntary manslaughter, with a prison sentence of ten years. Franklin killed Hurley Proctor another negro, with a knife. The conviction is sustained by the State's evidence and on the testimony of Franklin himself he is clearly guilty of manslaughter. These parties got into an altercation in a roadhouse. They abused each other, exchanging epithets. Both were more or less intoxicated, the deceased perhaps more so than his companion. About 3 A. M. they went out of the building, both having knives in their hands. The testimony is that the deceased backed off and threw a brick at Franklin, who went after him with his knife and followed him as he retreated across the concrete roadway where both men fell, Franklin on top. Franklin himself testifies that in that position he cut the deceased with his knife. The proof is that he did so brutally and fatally. Testimony of all the witnesses indicates that there was a willing fight between the two men in which each was armed with a knife, and we think the testimony also indicates that the deceased undertook to withdraw and was followed up by Franklin. The assignment challenging the evidence is overruled.

By another assignment it is insisted that error was committed in permitting the undertaker, who removed the body from the scene, to testify that in his opinion the knife wounds which he described caused the death of the deceased. The testimony of this witness is in narrative form, that bearing on this question reading as follows: "Gill was asked the question, what in his opinion was the cause of the death this question was objected to and the objection overruled and exceptions taken, and Gill answered that it was his opinion that the cause of death was the severance of the spinal column by the knife wound. He testified that the wound in the head was about six inches deep; that the deceased had severe wounds on legs and privates."

In the first place, it will be noted that the objection was quite general in form, in no way indicating its ground. This violates the well settled rule that objections must be specific, otherwise the trial court will not be put in error. But if it be conceded that the objection was properly taken we are not of opinion that reversible error was committed.

In his work on evidence, Mr. Wharton lays down the rule that one who is not an expert may,...