Jennings v. Riddle

• Decision Date: 02 November 1935
• Citation: 95 S.W.2d 946
• Parties: JENNINGS v. RIDDLE.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

95 S.W.2d 946

JENNINGS v. RIDDLE.

Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Eastern Section.

November 2, 1935.

Petition for Certiorari Denied by Supreme Court April 4, 1936.

Appeal in Error from Circuit Court, Unicoi County; Ben Allen, Judge.

Action by Oscar Riddle, by his next friend, against O. M. Jennings. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals in error.

Affirmed.

Dennis Erwin and Fred D. Booth, both of Erwin, for plaintiff in error.

D. M. Guinn and Thomas E. Mitchell, both of Johnson City, and De Witt Tucker, of Erwin, for defendant in error.

PORTRUM, Judge.

The plaintiff below, Oscar Riddle, a nineteen year old boy suing by his next friend, recovered a judgment of $1,500 against the defendant, O. M. Jennings, a deputy sheriff, who in an attempt to arrest him on a charge of drunkenness and the operation of an automobile upon the highways while drunk, followed him into the state of North Carolina and having overtaken the plaintiff and his party attempted to arrest the party of four men when the plaintiff jumped out of the car and attempted to run away, and the defendant, Jennings, shot him above the ankle in the rear of his leg.

Conceding the facts leading up to the arrest as stated by the defendant, and that the defendant and his party as officers were chasing to overcome and suppress drunken, reckless drivers upon the highway, nevertheless these facts do not alter the rights and duties of the parties at the time of an arrest. We will concede under the laws of North Carolina that these officers had a right to make the arrest as private citizens, for a misdemeanor committed in their presence in the state of North Carolina, and in attempting to make the arrest they were acting within the statutory provisions authorizing an arrest by private persons of that state. It only becomes a question then of how much force a private person is permitted to use to restrain a misdemeanant who is attempting to flee and avoid arrest, unless the shooting was accidental and is not attributable to a negligent accidental discharge.

The defendant officer and his three companion officers who were attempting to arrest the occupants of this car testified that the gun was accidently discharged, and that it was caused by the plaintiff jumping out of the car so near to and upon the defendant as to startle him and cause the pistol to discharge. The defendant says that he had the pistol in his left hand and was attempting to place handcuffs upon two of the occupants of the car who were in his custody and that the plaintiff jumped out of the car and brushed or struck against him when he turned around and the pistol was unintentionally discharged striking the plaintiff a few inches above the ankle. This version of the affair was not accepted by the jury. And it is said that the plaintiff's witnesses were all drunk at the time, whereas the officers were sober and men of good character and as a matter of public policy the court should not permit the discrediting of officers of this character and the acceptance of drunken misdemeanants under such circumstances. We are cited to no authority justifying such position on the grounds of public policy; jurors are better able to determine the facts of the case and it is their right to determine the facts under the Constitution; if the jury at times makes a mistake, it is no more than the court does at times. And the plaintiff's evidence seems to be corroborated by some of the physical facts, for the plaintiff was shot in the rear when he said he was running away. There were enough officers there to handle these young men, if they were in the state of intoxication indicated by the defendant's testimony, and it was not necessary to display firearms in an attempt to handcuff two men with one hand while holding a loaded pistol in another. If a pistol was necessary as a deterrent, one of the officers could have held the pistol and the other three could have done the handcuffing, and had this course been followed there would have been no danger of an accident. The defendant was in high temper as indicated by his...