Parrott v. State
Decision Date | 01 September 1911 |
Parties | PARROTT v. STATE. |
Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Eugene E. Ivins and E. L. Roberts, for plaintiff in error. Assistant Attorney General Faw, for the State.
The plaintiff in error being on trial in the circuit court of McMinn county under a charge of selling intoxicating liquors within four miles of an institution of learning in violation of the statute against such acts, evidence was introduced, over his objection, as follows: On cross-examination he was asked if Joe Taylor did not testify before a United States commissioner in his presence and hearing that he had sold whisky to said Taylor, and further if he did not fail to go on the witness stand and deny it; also, the same question as to Ham Hacker; also, whether Ham Hacker had not testified before a justice of the peace on a committing trial the same thing in his presence, with a like failure on his part to go on the witness stand and deny it — to all of which questions he answered, "Yes." On this evidence the trial judge charged the jury as follows:
The evidence was incompetent, and the charge was erroneous. The rule that statements made in the presence of an accused person charging him with crime create a presumption against him, if not denied by him, does not apply to such statements made in the course of judicial proceedings. Bell v. State, 93 Ga. 557, 19 S. E. 244; State v. Mullins, 101 Mo. 514, 517, 14 S. W. 625; State v. Hale, 156 Mo. 102, 107,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Silverberg
...917 (1929); State v. Conway, 348 Mo. 580, 154 S.W.2d 128 (1941); People v. Russo, 251 A.D. 176, 295 N.Y.S. 457 (1937); Parrott v. State, 125 Tenn. 1, 139 S.W. 1056 (1911). states have statutes prohibiting such use of the claim of privilege. E.g., Mass.Gen.Laws Ann. c. 278, § 23 (1959); M.C.......
-
State v. Conway
...Cr. 548, 147 S.W. 592; Scroggins v. State, 97 Tex. Cr. 573, 263 S.W. 303; Hays v. State, 101 Tex. Cr. 162, 274 S.W. 579; Parrott v. State, 125 Tenn. 1, 139 S.W. 1056.] As have previously stated, this is the first time the exact question has ever been presented in a criminal case in this Sta......
-
Silverberg, In re
...(1929); State v. Conway, 348 Mo. 580, 154 S.W.2d 128 (1941); People v. Russo, 251 App.Div. 176, 295 N.Y.S. 457 (1937); Parrott v. State, 125 Tenn. 1, 139 S.W. 1056 (1911). Several states have statutes prohibiting such use of the claim of privilege. E.g., Mass.Gen.Laws Ann. c. 278, § 23 (195......
-
Raffel v. United States
...88 S. W. 1089, 28 Ky. Law Rep. 81; Smith v. State, 90 Miss. 111, 43 So. 465, 122 Am. St. Rep. 313; Parrott v. State, 125 Tenn. 1, 139 S. W. 1056, 35 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1073, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 239; Wilson v. State, 54 Tex. Cr. R. 505, 113 S. W. 529. And see People v. Prevost, supra, 246 et seq.......