Moorehead v. State
| Decision Date | 14 November 1966 |
| Citation | 219 Tenn. 271,23 McCanless 271,409 S.W.2d 357 |
| Parties | , 219 Tenn. 271 Jimmy MOOREHEAD v. STATE of Tennessee. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
James G. Nave, Cleveland, for plaintiff in error.
George F. McCanless, Atty. Gen., and Thomas E. Fox, Asst. Atty. Gen., Nashville, James P. Watkins, Dist. Atty. Gen., Loudon, and Kenneth Deatherage, Asst. Dist. Atty. Gen., Kingston, prosecuted case in trial court, for defendant in error.
The plaintiff in error was convicted of grand larceny and sentenced to serve three years in the State penitentiary. This conviction has been seasonably appealed, briefs filed and arguments heard.
In the outset in view of the disposition we find it necessary to make of this case we will not go into the facts. One of the errors assigned was that the trial judge in refusing to grant a continuance, even though a material witness under subpoena was not available, committed error. On the day the case was called for trial and was heard, counsel for the plaintiff in error filed his affidavit in aid of his motion for a continuance. In the affidavit the counsel said:
'That Warren Austin is the only witness who was present in the automobile with the defendant, Jimmy Moorehead for a great period of time prior to the arrest of the defendant and who can testify as to the defendant's lack of guilt in receiving, buying or concealing of said automobile, as charged.
Accompanying this affidavit was the written motion made by counsel to continue the case. Among other things in this motion it is said:
'Defendant avers that this witness is material to the defense of this case as he is the only witness who can prove that the defendant did not receive, buy or conceal the automobile of Billy D. Collins as alleged, knowing that the same had been stolen and can further testify that the defendant, Jimmy Moorehead, did not break into or steal the automobile of the said Billy D. Collins, and that said witness was under subpoena to this Court and is material to his defense.'
Under this motion to continue which was filed on March 3, 1966, the day this case was called to trial, the following appears in the handwriting of the trial judge: .
We find after reading this record that this witness, if he would so testify, though it may not be plainly or correctly stated in the affidavit, is the only one who can testify to certain facts to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Teague v. State
...of the trial court's discretion unless this Court finds the trial court clearly abused its discretion. See Moorehead v. State, 219 Tenn. 271, 274-275, 409 S.W.2d 357, 358 (1966); State v. Seals, 735 S.W.2d 849, 853 (Tenn.Crim.App.1987); State v. Wooden, 658 S.W.2d 553, 558 (Tenn.Crim.App.19......
-
State v. Copeland, No. E2002-01123-CCA-R3-DD (TN 8/22/2005)
...granting or denying of a continuance is a matter which addresses itself to the sound discretion of the trial judge. Moorehead v. State, 409 S.W.2d 357, 358 (Tenn. 1966) (citing Bass v. State, 191 Tenn. 259, 231 S.W.2d 707 (1950)). An abuse of discretion is demonstrated by showing that the f......
-
State v. Teel
...of the trial judge and will not be disturbed unless the requesting party makes a clear showing of prejudice. Moorehead v. State, 219 Tenn. 271, 409 S.W.2d 357, 358 (Tenn.1966); State v. Goodman, 643 S.W.2d 375, 378 (Tenn.Crim.App.1982). Defendant has not made the clear showing of prejudice ......
-
State v. Dykes
...106 S.Ct. 3308, 92 L.Ed.2d 721 (1986); State v. Howell, 672 S.W.2d 442, 445-446 (Tenn.Crim.App.1984).29 Moorehead v. State, 219 Tenn. 271, 274-275, 409 S.W.2d 357, 358-359 (1966); State v. Frahm, 737 S.W.2d 799, 802 (Tenn.Crim.App.1987).30 State v. Hartman, supra; State v. Reynolds, 671 S.W......