Hicks v. State
| Decision Date | 09 February 1972 |
| Citation | 480 S.W.2d 357 |
| Parties | William HICKS, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE of Tennessee, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals |
Fred M. Milligan, Chattanooga, for plaintiff in error.
David M. Pack, Atty. Gen., Alex B. Shipley, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Nashville, Stanley J. Lanzo and Lawrence Young, Asst. Dist. Attys. Gen., Chattanooga, for defendant in error.
Plaintiff in error appeals from his conviction of robbery in the Criminal Court of Hamilton County and assigns as the only error by which he seeks reversal of the five to ten year sentence imposed the introduction into evidence against him of the contents of a letter admittedly written by him while in jail. The letter, recovered from a trustee by a jail guard before it was delivered to the intended recipient, was addressed to a girl friend of the defendant, also an inmate in the jail, and read as follows:
There was ample evidence before the jury at the time the letter was read by the defendant to them over objection as to its admissibility upon being requested to do so by the assistant district attorney general during cross examination that the defendant had assaulted and robbed the victim in the wash room of the Greyhound Bus Terminal at about 5 A.M. on the 2nd day of December. It is readily apparent that if the facts regarding the defendant and his girl friend's association until after that time could be established a perfect defense of alibi would be available to him. It was the State's purpose to show that the defendant was attempting to manufacture such a defense as conduct inconsistent with innocence.
Although all of the error alleged resulted from the introduction of the letter, the plaintiff in error urges upon us four separate reasons for holding that its admission requires reversal:
(1) The contents of said letter were such that it could easily have been misunderstood by the jury much to the detriment of the defendant's rights to a fair trial;
(2) The evidence was illegally obtained in violation of the Constitutions of the State of Tennessee and the United States;
(3) The defendant was compelled to give evidence against himself in violation of the constitutions of the State of Tennessee and the United States; and
(4) The language of said letter was such that it could have been interpreted by the jury as a confession of guilt. It was obtained without advising defendant that it might be used against him.
Whether or not the letter was intended to instruct the defendant's lady friend to commit perjury or tell the truth raised a question of fact for the determination of the jury, taking into consideration all the other evidence in the case. The defendant carefully explained his position that the letter was intended only to 'remind' the potential witness and not to prompt her to lie. The jury, in view of the absence of any alibi witnesses and the convincing proof that the defendant was the man who robbed the victim (whose watch and billfold were recovered from Hicks), was certainly within its prerogative in finding this issue against him. See McBee v. State, 213 Tenn. 15, 372 S.W.2d 173.
The letter came into the hands of the jail authorities through means that did not trench upon any rights of the defendant. He voluntarily wrote the letter; and no coercion, trickery or deceit was involved on behalf of State agents in acquiring it. Such communications are not unlike spontaneous utterances that may be overheard by a third party and used in the prosecution of the person making them. If the incarcerated girl friend of the defendant had been in an adjoining cell making oral communication possible but subject to being overheard by a guard, it is doubtful if the defendant would even contend that material statements thus broadcast would be inadmissible. Even if such statements made vocally were addressed to none in particular, as a cry of anguish such as, might emanate from the depths...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Jeffers, 4253
...(1979); State v. Johnson, 476 S.W.2d 516 (Mo.1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 859, 93 S.Ct. 144, 34 L.Ed.2d 105 (1972); Hicks v. State, 480 S.W.2d 357 (Tenn.Cr.App.1972); State v. Copeland, 15 Wash.App. 374, 549 P.2d 26 (1976). Once prison officials have a right to examine such messages, no ru......
-
State v. Taylor
...were turned over to the warden "under the practice and discipline of the prison." A similar conclusion was reached in Hicks v. State, 480 S.W.2d 357 (Tenn.Cr.App.1972). As Savage indicates the Stroud holding has been questioned in light of recent developments in Fourth Amendment law and the......
-
People v. Oliver
...F.2d 1 (CA 9, 1971); Denson v. United States, 424 F.2d 329 (CA 10, 1970); State v. McCoy, Or., 527 P.2d 725 (1974); Hicks v. Tennessee, 480 S.W.2d 357 (Tenn.Cr.App., 1972); State v. Johnson, 476 S.W.2d 516 (Mo., 1972), Cert. den. 409 U.S. 859, 93 S.Ct. 144, 34 L.Ed.2d 105 (1972).See also, C......
-
State v. Gilbert
...as to matters which were relevant, material and germane to the issues which the jury would be required to resolve. Hicks v. State, 480 S.W.2d 357, 360 (Tenn.Crim.App.1972); State v. Hudson, 631 S.W.2d 716, 719 (Tenn.Crim.App.1981). Thus, the defendant was not entitled to invoke the privileg......