Shemwell v. State

Decision Date08 April 1964
PartiesWillie SHEMWELL and Franklin Jenkins v. STATE of Tennessee. 18 McCanless 24, 214 Tenn. 24, 377 S.W.2d 906
CourtTennessee Supreme Court

James C. Cunningham, Clarksville, for plaintiffs in error.

George F. McCanless, Atty. Gen., Walker T. Tipton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Nashville, for the State.

DYER, Justice.

The defendants, Willie Shemwell and Franklin Jenkins, appeal from a conviction of robbery having each received a sentence of seven years.

On 26 January 1963 at about 11:20 P.M. 'Bob's Quick Shop' in Clarksville was robbed at gun point of about $500.00 by a negro man wearing a mask. On 3 February 1963 these defendants along with Curtis Singleton and Sollie Slayden were arrested for this robbery. Singleton and Slayden confessed while defendants denied any part in this robbery. These four were jointly indicted, but upon motion of the State a severance was allowed, as to Singleton and Slayden.

One of the assignments of error raises the question of whether there is corroborating evidence to support the testimony of Slayden and Singleton, they being accomplices. The testimony of these accomplices supports the following facts.

Slayden had worked at the Quick Shop. Singleton had a room at a negro establishment known as the 'Businessman's Club.' On the night in question Slayden, Singleton and defendants got into the car of one, Nelson Winder, to be driven by Winder from this Club to the Quick Shop. Defendant Jenkins was in the front seat with Winder and the others in the rear seat. They took a circuitous route going to the Quick Shop and during the course of the ride discussed the contemplated robbery. Upon arriving at the Quick Shop Singleton got out of the car, and the others, after noticing a police car parked nearby at the railroad station returned to the Club. Singleton proceeded alone to the Quick Shop and after accomplishing the robbery proceeded on foot via the railroad tracks back to the Club. Upon returning to the Club Singleton met defendants. These three agreed to hide the money box taken in the robbery in Singleton's trunk, defendant Jenkins retaining the key. The next morning defendants returned to the Club whereupon defendant Jenkins obtained the money box giving an address on Kellogg Street where the proceeds would be divided. Later the same morning Singleton was unable to locate this address. The next day Singleton saw defendants on the street and upon inquiring of defendant Jenkins about the money box was told by defendant Jenkins not to talk about it on the streets, but to step into a store, which they did. The three of them went in the Brick's Army Store, but apparently soon thereafter Sgt. Davis and another officer came into this store and all three of these men left. Defendant Jenkins and Shemwell left together in one car with defendant Jenkins getting out near a negro high school. Defendant Shemwell left in a car with someone else. These accomplices further testified that they and defendants had for a period of about a week discussed and planned this robbery.

To corroborate the testimony of the accomplices Singleton and Slayden the State offered the following evidence.

Nelson Winder a member of the U. S. Army, upon learning of the robbery through newspaper accounts, volunteered to the police what information he had. This witness testified, on the night in question, he did drive defendant Jenkins and three others from the Businessman's Club to the Quick Shop, where Singleton got out and the rest of them returned to the Club. The request for this trip was made by defendant Jenkins in order to obtain some change and during the trip he heard no discussion of any robbery. This witness identified defendant Jenkins, Slayden, Singleton and one other he did not know as making this trip with him....

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • State v. Dickerson
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • December 23, 1981
    ...(1879); People v. Mullens, 292 N.Y. 408, 52 N.E.2d 479 (1944), rehearing denied, 293 N.Y. 768, 57 N.E.2d 845 (1944); Shemwell v. State, 214 Tenn. 24, 377 S.W.2d 906 (1961). Under the State's theory, the fortuity of a joint trial would allow a defendant to be convicted on testimony of an acc......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT