Harless v. State

Decision Date10 December 1949
Citation225 S.W.2d 258,189 Tenn. 419,25 Beeler 419
PartiesHARLESS v. STATE. 25 Beeler 419, 189 Tenn. 419, 225 S.W.2d 258
CourtTennessee Supreme Court

Stacy J. Grayson, Bristol, for plaintiff in error.

J. Malcolm Shull, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BURNETT, Justice.

This is an appeal from convictions of driving while drunk and reckless driving with punishment fixed by the jury, on request under applicable statutory enactment, to a jail sentence of 30 days and a $50 fine for each offense.

The assignments aver that, (1 and 2) the evidence preponderates against the verdict; (3) that the trial court erred in overruling a motion for a directed verdict, and that (4) error was committed in admitting hearsay evidence.

The evidence, in narrative form, shows that a highway patrolman arrived at the scene of an automobile wreck, pursuant to a radio report, about thirty minutes after the wreck. He found two cars slightly damaged on the plaintiff in error's side of the road. The plaintiff in error was present and admitted driving the car, and according to the office he was under the influence of an intoxicant. The officer also says another person was at the scene of the wreck, while the officer was there, and said the plaintiff in error was drunk, and that the plaintiff in error made no response. Another witness said the plaintiff in error admitted driving the car, and that he was unsteady on his feet. No objection was offered to any testimony in so far as this record shows.

No objection being interposed to the testimony of the officer as to what a bystander said it may properly be considered and given its natural probative effect as if it were in law admissible. Barlow v. Verrill, 88 N.H. 25, 183 A. 857, 104 A.L.R. 1130. Long ago this Court observed in Baxter v. State, 83 Tenn. 657, that parties 'May admit illegal evidence if they don't choose to object, if they do not want to admit it, they should object as soon as it is offered'.

The plaintiff in error asserts that there is no evidence of his guilt except his admissions and that, therefore, he cannot be convicted. He relies on Ashby v. State, 124 Tenn. 684, 139 S.W. 872, 875, in support of this assertion. In that case this Court said:

'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. * * *

'Undoubtedly some evidence of the corpus delicti should precede the introduction of the confessions of the prisoner, to the extent at...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Teague v. State
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals
    • December 14, 1988
    ...called to testify, would testify adversely to the position taken in his petition for post-conviction relief, see Harless v. State, 189 Tenn. 419, 422, 225 S.W.2d 258, 259 (1949); Ford v. State, 184 Tenn. 443, 449, 201 S.W.2d 539, 541 (1945); Brown v. State, 1 Tenn.Crim.App. 294, 299, 441 S.......
  • Hancock v. State
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals
    • May 28, 1968
    ...322, 219 S.W.2d 188, 193; Nichols v. State, 200 Tenn. 65, 91--92, 289 S.W.2d 849, 860, and cases there cited.' And in Harless v. State, 189 Tenn. 419, 225 S.W.2d 258, the court 'No objection being interposed to the testimony of the officer as to what a bystander said it may properly be cons......
  • O'Neil v. State
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals
    • March 13, 1970
    ...486, 341 S.W.2d 385; Turner v. State, 188 Tenn. 312, 219 S.W.2d 188; Nichols v. State, 200 Tenn. 65, 289 S.W.2d 849; Harless v. State, 189 Tenn. 419, 225 S.W.2d 258. We further note that Wade held that absence of counsel at pre-trial lineup renders courtroom identification inadmissible unle......
  • State v. Rhoden
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals
    • April 16, 1987
    ...appellant failed to make a contemporaneous objection to the admission of the testimony when it was offered. See Harless v. State, 189 Tenn. 419, 225 S.W.2d 258, 259 (1949); Floyd v. State, 1 Tenn.Crim.App. 106, 430 S.W.2d 888, 892 (1968); Hill v. State, 513 S.W.2d 142, 143 SUMMATION OF THE ......
  • 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