Smith v. State
| Decision Date | 11 September 1963 |
| Citation | 16 McCanless 510,370 S.W.2d 543,212 Tenn. 510 |
| Parties | , 212 Tenn. 510 Lawrence Alton SMITH v. STATE of Tennessee. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
A. B. McNabb, Vester Neal Agee, Lebanon, for plaintiff in error.
George F. McCanless, Atty. Gen., Thomas E. Fox, Asst. Atty. Gen., Nashville, for the State.
The plaintiff in error, Lawrence Alton Smith, hereinafter called defendant, was indicted for murder in the first degree of E. L. Martin, the office and business manager for Castle Heights Military Academy in Lebanon, Tennessee.
Upon trial, the jury found defendant guilty of murder in the second degree and he was sentenced to serve ten years in the State Penitentiary (T.C.A. Sec. 39-2403). Defendant has appealed in error and insists, among his other assignments, that the evidence preponderates against the verdict of guilt and in favor of his innocence.
There is little or no dispute as to the facts and circumstances of the killing. Defendant was a man 33 years of age, of good character, and had been employed as nightwatchman at Castle Heights School for about a year. It was while he was performing his duties as such nightwatchman at about 1:45 A.M. July 13, 1961, that the homicide occurred in the commissary which is located in the 'Main Hall' near the business office of the school.
It appears that for some time prior to the shooting, the deceased, E. L. Martin, business manager of the school, suspected that some unknown person was pilfering petty cash from the several boxes kept in the commissary. Acting upon this suspicion, he had been secreting himself in the business office of the commissary and keeping a nightly watch in the hope of catching the culprit. On the night in question, he had come to his office, located in the 'Main Hall' near the commissary, and had concealed himself in his office to watch for the thief.
It was a custom known and permitted by the deceased for defendant and the other nightwatchmen alternating with him to carry a pistol while on duty as nightwatchman. On the night in question defendant, in the course of his regular duty, entered the 'Main Hall' to make a routine check for burglars or fires; and then, as was customary for the nightwatchmen there, he went into the commissary about 1:45 A.M. to get a snack. He did not turn on any lights, but used his flashlight, got a cold drink and some ice cream, and put the money for them in the change box.
Just as he was doing that, he heard a noise coming from the area of the manager's office, and saw a 'bulk of something' with a flashlight coming toward him; and, as he testified, the area was without lights and so dark that one could not recognize another. Seeing this figure in the dark coming toward him, he became excited, and, as he put it, to protect himself and the property he was hired to watch, he pulled his pistol and fired its seven shots in the direction of the figure, killing the man who later turned out to be the deceased Martin.
After the shooting, defendant, without turning on the lights in the Main Hall, and without knowing whom he had shot, rushed out the door, which automatically locked behind him, and ran about a mile and a half from the Castle Heights School to the Lebanon Police Station, arriving there in a state of great emotion, crying hysterically, and told the police he thought he had shot a man.
It appears that prior to the trial an examination had been made of defendant by the experts on the staff at the Central State Hospital for the Insane, and they made a report regarding his mental condition, which was read into the record. This report stated that, while defendant was not insane, and appeared to know wrong from right so as to be responsible for his acts, he suffered from a chronic brain damage and was excitable and highly emotional. The pertinent part of this report was as follows:
It is true the verdict and the judgment thereon displaced the presumption of defendant's innocence, raised a presumption of his guilt in this Court, and put upon him the burden of showing that the evidence preponderates against the verdict and in favor of his innocence. Ivy v. State, 197 Tenn. 650, 652, 277 S.W.2d 363, 364; Anderson v. State, 207 Tenn. 486, 495, 341 S.W.2d 385, 389.
Upon full consideration of the evidence, however, we think defendant has carried the burden of showing that the evidence preponderates against the verdict and judgment of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Farris v. State
...2 (1957); Hunt v. State, 202 Tenn. 227, 303 S.W.2d 740 (1957); Cooper v. State, 210 Tenn. 63, 356 S.W.2d 405 (1962); Smith v. State, 212 Tenn. 510, 370 S.W.2d 543 (1963), and the recent case of Smith et al. v. State, 527 S.W.2d 737 (Tenn.1975) where this Court, speaking through Chief Justic......
-
Clark v. Rose
...State, supra, 528 S.W.2d at 262; Sikes v. State, supra, 524 S.W.2d at 4853; Gann v. State, supra, 383 S.W.2d 3612; Smith v. State, 212 Tenn. 510, 370 S.W.2d 543, 5454 (1963); Nance v. State, 210 Tenn. 328, 358 S.W.2d 327, 3294 (1962). These presumptions of malice appear to be an outgrowth o......
-
Banks v. United States
...malice, but upon a sudden heat or passion produced by provocation adequate to obscure the reason of an ordinary man." Smith v. State, 370 S.W.2d 543, 545 (Tenn. 1963). As such, a voluntary manslaughter conviction required an "intentional killing." In United States v. Collins, 799 F.3d 554, ......
-
Braziel v. State
...Nance v. State, 210 Tenn. 328, 358 S.W.2d 327; Gann v. State, supra; Bostick v. State, 210 Tenn. 620, 360 S.W.2d 472; Smith v. State, 212 Tenn. 510, 370 S.W.2d 543. "In such cases the burden is upon the State to establish that the killing constituted murder in the first degree, if such is c......