Harvey v. State
| Decision Date | 05 March 1964 |
| Citation | 17 McCanless 608,213 Tenn. 608,376 S.W.2d 497 |
| Parties | Edward Junior HARVEY v. STATE of Tennessee. 17 McCanless 608, 213 Tenn. 608, 376 S.W.2d 497 |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Moore, Gearinger & Swafford, Chattanooga, for plaintiff in error.
George F. McCanless, Atty. Gen., Thomas E. Fox, Asst. Atty. Gen., Nashville, for the State.
Plaintiff in error, herein called defendant, was indicted in Hamilton County upon an indictment charging him, by different counts, with larceny of a Ford automobile, the property of Furlow-Cate, Inc.; receiving and concealing said automobile, knowing it to have been stolen; and with feloniously taking and using it without the owner's consent (T.C.A. Sec. 59-504).
The jury found defendant guilty on the count for receiving and concealing the car, and fixed his punishment at not more than three years' imprisonment. The Trial Judge accordingly entered judgment sentencing defendant for a term of not less, nor more, than three years in the penitentiary.
Defendant appealed in error and insists that the evidence preponerates against the verdict of guilt and in favor of his innocence, and that there is no proof of venue--no proof that the offense of which he stands convicted was committed in Hamilton County.
The evidence for the State proved the Larceny was committed in Hamilton County. While in the possession of an employee of Furlow-Cate, Inc., this automobile was stolen from his driveway at his home in Red Bank in Hamilton County on or about May 25, 1962. On the next day the car was found somewhere, the proof not showing where. It had been stripped of most of its parts, including its motor, and what remained of it had been burned.
About two or three weeks later, this motor was found in Dunlap, Sequatchie County, Tennessee, by Lt. York of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation. This motor was properly identified as the one that had been taken from the stolen car. When found, the motor had been installed in an automobile of Fletcher Lewis, an employee of the Dunlap Motor Company, a Ford dealer in Dunlap, Tennessee.
Called as a witness by the State, Fletcher Lewis testified that he bought this motor from defendant for $300.00 cash on May 28, 1962. He said that defendant came to see him in Dunlap on Saturday May 26, they there made the 'DEAL,' AND ON THE NEXT DAY LEWIS AND TWO companions, gordon hickey and Orville Lane, went somewhere 'upon Daisy Mountain towards Montlake' to a house, where they were met by defendant and two other persons.
They then walked about 25 yeards into the woods to a parked pickup truck, in the bed of which was the motor. They loaded the motor into Lewis' vehicle and he and his companions took it back to Dunlap. On the next day, he paid defendant for the motor in Dunlap. Lewis could not locate the place where they went to get the motor, did not know whether it was in Sequatchie or Hamilton County. Likewise, neither Hickey nor Lane could say whether that place was in Sequatchie or Hamilton County.
Defendant testified in his own behalf and denied any connection with or knowledge of the stolen automobile or the motor. He denied that he had sold the motor to Fletcher Lewis or had had any dealings with Lewis. He also called a couple of other witnesses who testified he had a good character and was worthy of belief on his oath.
The burden was on the prosecution to prove that the offenses were committed in Hamilton County, as laid in the indictment. This has been the rule since...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Young, No. W2002-03012-CCA-R3-DD (TN 2/9/2005), W2002-03012-CCA-R3-DD.
...art. I, § 9; see also Tenn. R. Crim. P. 18. Proof of venue is necessary to establish the court's jurisdiction. See Harvey v. State, 376 S.W.2d 497, 498 (Tenn. 1964); Hopson v. State, 299 S.W.2d 11, 14 (Tenn. 1957). However, because venue is not an element of the offense, the State need only......
-
D'Antonio v. Carpenter
...in which the court sits. State v. Hill, 847 S.W.2d 544, 545 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. 1992) (citing Tenn. Const. art. I, § 9; Harvey v. State, 376 S.W.2d 497 (Tenn. 1964); Norris v. State, 155 S.W. 164 (Tenn. 1913)). There is no dispute in this case that the murder occurred in Davidson County a......
-
Marshall v. State
...which the jury did not respond, and the accused may not again be put to trial upon those other counts in the indictment. Harvey v. State, 213 Tenn. 608, 376 S.W.2d 497; Franklin v. State, 202 Tenn. 666, 308 S.W.2d 417; Asbury v. State, 178 Tenn. 43, 154 S.W.2d 794; French v. State, 159 Tenn......
-
State v. Poe, No. E2003-00417-CCA-R3-CD (TN 7/19/2004)
...see also Tenn. R. Crim. P. 18. The state must prove that the offense was committed in the county of the indictment. Harvey v. State, 213 Tenn. 608, 612, 376 S.W.2d 497 (1964). Because venue, a question for the jury, is not an element of the offense, it need be established only by a preponde......