Logan v. State
| Decision Date | 08 February 1915 |
| Parties | LOGAN v. STATE. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Cannon County; John E. Richardson, Judge.
Lloyd Logan was convicted of murder, and he appeals. Affirmed.
H. T. Stewart, Josh Barton, and C. L. Cummings, all of Woodbury, and Robt. Smartt, of McMinnville, for appellant. Wm. H. Swiggart, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Lloyd Logan was indicted and tried for the murder of one William Wallace. Found guilty of murder in the second degree by the jury, and his punishment fixed at 15 years' confinement in the penitentiary, he has appealed and assigned several errors, only one of which is it purposed to consider in this opinion.
In the absence of the accused a venire was ordered by the trial judge to be summoned to appear, for the selection therefrom of the members of the jury which should try the accused; and in pursuance of that order the sheriff acted.
This is assigned as error, and it is urged by his counsel that this amounted to a denial to the prisoner of his constitutional right to be present in person at every step of his trial.
The Constitution, in the embodied Declaration of Rights, art. 1, § 9, provides:
"That in all criminal prosecutions, the accused hath the right to be heard by himself and his counsel, to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and to have a copy thereof, to meet the witnesses face to face, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and in prosecutions by indictment or presentment, a speedy public trial, by an impartial jury of the county * * * in which the crime shall have been committed."
In Andrews v. State, 2 Sneed (34 Tenn.) 550, it was held that in criminal cases of the grade of felony, where the life or liberty of the accused is in peril, he has the right to be present, and must be present, during the trial and until the final judgment, so that there is no jurisdiction to receive a verdict or to pronounce final judgment in his absence.
The words "during the trial" are not to be construed to cover every preliminary step taken in preparation for the trial. It was ruled in Hopkins v. State, 10 Lea (78 Tenn.) 206, that a change of venue may be granted and ordered in the absence of a prisoner, upon his petition, provided he is under the custody or control of the court and "so circumstanced and situated that the court may command and have his personal attendance." In accord are Jones v. State, 152 Ind. 318, 53 N. E. 222, and State v. Long, 209 Mo. 366, 108 S. W. 35.
By a decided weight of authority the defendant's presence is not necessary at the ordering of matters purely preliminary to the trial; as, for example, at the time of fixing the day for the trial (State v. Clark, 32 La. Ann. 558; State v. Abrams, 11 Or. 169, 8 Pac. 327), or of hearing application and granting an order for the attachment of witnesses (State v. Simien, 36 La. Ann. 923).
It was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Kuhnhausen
... ... But preliminary and formal matters constitute no part of the trial, and are therefore legal, even though defendant was not present. * * *' ... See also State v. Savan, 148 Or. 423, 36 P.2d 594, 96 A.L.R. 497; Logan v. State, 131 Tenn. 75, 173 S.W. 443; Kelly v. State, 3 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 518; Harris v. State, 115 Tex.Cr.R. 227, 28 S.W.2d 813, 70 A.L.R. 1066; Milton v. State, 134 Ala. 42, 32 So. 653; People v. Ferguson, 124 Cal.App. 221, 12 P.2d 158, 960; Wilson v. State, 90 Okl.Cr. 180, 212 P.2d 172; ... ...
-
State v. Allen
...beginning of the impaneling of the jury until the reception of the verdict and the discharge of the jury.'" Id. (quoting Logan v. State, 173 S.W. 443, 444 (Tenn. 1914)). 43(a) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure also gives a defendant the right to be present at trial: "Unless excus......
-
Mathews v. State
...beginning of the impaneling of the jury until the reception of the verdict and the discharge of the jury.'" Id. (quoting Logan v. State, 173 S.W. 443, 444 (Tenn. 1914)). Rule 43(a) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure also gives a defendant the right to be present at trial:Page 52 (......
-
State v. Beauregard, 99-01496
...of the jury until the reception of the verdict and the discharge of the jury.'" Muse, 967 S.W.2d at 766 (quoting Logan v. State,173 S.W. 443, 444 (Tenn. 1915)). Our supreme court has held that a defendant's total absence from the entire voir dire process is not subject to harmless error ana......