McCall v. State
| Decision Date | 31 March 1934 |
| Parties | McCALL v. STATE. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Charles Embry, Charles H. Rutherford, and James W. Rutherford, all of Nashville, for plaintiff in error.
Nat Tipton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The plaintiff in error has been convicted of assault and battery and his punishment fixed at a fine of $100 and confinement in the county workhouse for a period of 11 months and 29 days.
The case comes before us in such plight as will render a consideration of the facts unnecessary.
Plaintiff in error was indicted along with several other boys charged with the murder of one Justin Hinkle. Upon the first trial of the case the other boys were acquitted, but plaintiff in error was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter and given a sentence of from one to five years in the penitentiary. He was, however, awarded a new trial. Upon the second trial of plaintiff in error, the jury returned a verdict as follows:
"That they find the defendant guilty of assault and battery and fix his punishment at a fine of $100, together with confinement in the county workhouse for a period of 11 months and 29 days."
The minute entry shows that the jury was thereupon discharged and "the defendant by his attorney moved the court for a new trial which motion the court continued for argument." The aforesaid verdict was returned at the May term, 1933, and the minute entry made on the same day, to wit, May 11, 1933. It appears that no formal or written motion for a new trial was filed at that time or thereafter.
The next minute entry with respect to this case appears on June 17, 1933, at the same term, and is in these words:
To this judgment and ruling of the court the defendant excepted and prayed an appeal, which was granted, and defendant given until July 1, 1933, in which time to perfect his appeal.
On July 1, 1933, at the same term of court, the record shows this minute entry:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Neely v. State
...But the judgment may be entered on the verdict later at any time during the term, or even at a subsequent term. McCall v. State, 167 Tenn. 329, 333, 69 S.W.2d 892; James v. State, 196 Tenn. 435, 437, 268 S.W.2d 341; Louisville & N. Railroad v. Ray, supra. But it cannot be entered nunc pro t......
-
McAlester v. Monteverde
...to authorize the entry of the verdict and judgment at a subsequent term under the authority conferred by Code, § 8721. McCall v. State, 167 Tenn. 329, 69 S.W.2d 892; Upchurch v. State, 153 Tenn. 198, 281 S.W. 462; Fort v. Dixie Oil Co., 171 Tenn. 199, 101 S.W.2d 692; Dunn v. State, 127 Tenn......
-
State ex rel. Underwood v. Brown
...Greenfield v. State, 66 Tenn. 18; Whitney v. State, 74 Tenn. 247; Dunn v. State, 124 Tenn. 267, 275, 154 S.W. 969; McCall v. State, 167 Tenn. 329, 333, 69 S.W.2d 892. The Court said in Greenfield v. State, supra, 'but until the judgment is rendered, or the cause in some way disposed of, it ......
-
Jones v. State
...to a jail sentence was merely that, and can be treated as surplusage. Bradley v. State, 159 Tenn. 432, 19 S.W.2d 260; McCall v. State, 167 Tenn. 329, 69 S.W.2d 892. See also Curtis v. State, 211 Tenn. 24, 362 S.W.2d 250. The trial judge, of course, had the power and duty to set a jail sente......