Stanley v. State
Decision Date | 09 July 1949 |
Citation | 222 S.W.2d 384,189 Tenn. 110 |
Parties | STANLEY v. STATE. |
Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, McNairy County; Robert A. Elkins, Judge. (Sitting for Judge Mark A. Walker.)
Jim Frank Stanley was convicted of housebreaking and larceny, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
Ross & Ross, Savannah, Tennessee, for plaintiff in error.
Nat Tipton, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
Stanley was indicted jointly with one Aubrey Surratt for housebreaking and larceny. He was found guilty and his punishment fixed at not more than three years confinement in the State Penitentiary, from which this appeal comes.
The record in this case discloses that on Sunday afternoon September 28, 1947, Stanley and Surratt got together about 12:00 o'clock noon and, as far as the record discloses remained together until they were arrested at separate times about 1:30 or 2:00 o'clock in the night following this afternoon and night together. They first shot craps and after losing their money they wandered around the streets first here and there in the town of Adamsville, in McNairy County. Sometime during the afternoon or early evening, Stanley cashed a check for $5.00 dollars and of this amount he purchased a pint of whiskey for $2.00 dollars and lost the other $3.00 dollars in the crap game. Along about supper time the parties being broke, Stanley says that they came to a restaurant and he ate supper there with two parties, whom he did not know, and they purchased his supper. Surratt is a man 39 years of age while Stanley is 22 years of age. During the whole of this time, that is from 12:00 o'clock noon until after 1:30 in the night following, as far as the record shows, these two parties were seen together constantly in and around this small town. Stanley says though that at the time he is accused of jointly robbing a drugstore that he was not with Surratt but that he had gone to try to get a check cashed. He says though that he was unsuccessful in doing this because all these places of business were closed.
Somewhere between 10:30 and 11:00 o'clock these two parties were seen at a cafe in town which they broke into. The parties who testify about this were riding through the town and, they testify, (apparently without contradiction) that Stanley was in the back of this cafe while Surratt was standing out front looking in the window or it might be inferred was standing there as a look-out. These parties upon seeing this, drove up the street in their car, turned around and came back to be sure of what they saw, after they had turned around and came back, they saw Stanley and Surratt just a little ways above this cafe in front of a picture show, apparently both Stanley and Surratt turned their backs so as not to be recognized. The record further shows without contradiction that about 12:00 o'clock at night on this day, Stanley and Surratt walked about a mile out of town to the home of a taxi cab driver and got this taxi cab driver out of bed and persuaded him to drive them some distance through the country to a place known as Purdy where they secured liquor. After securing this liquor, the taxi cab driver brought both of these parties back to a house of 'ill-fame' in the edge of Adamsville and left them there. As the taxi cab driver was leaving them and after he had driven a short way from this house, he was stopped by the sheriff. The sheriff did not find either of the parties in his car and the sheriff then went on to this house of 'ill-fame' and arrested Surratt on a warrant charging Surratt with stabbing someone. Shortly thereafter the sheriff returned and arrested Stanley charging him with loitering around a disorderly house. Meantime, Surratt had been placed in jail, from which he was released the following morning on bond. Apparently Stanley was kept in jail from the time of his arrest until sometime after Surratt had been released.
On the following day the proprietors of a drugstore in this town upon opening up their store, found that it had been broken into and burglarized. Money and property were stolen from the store of a value in excess of $100.00 dollars. A back window in which a fan was placed had been prized open or the leaves of the fan had been pried apart so that a person could enter. This burglary was reported to the sheriff and he in turn made an investigation. Surratt was again arrested or inquiry was at least made of Surratt and he admitted the burglary to the sheriff and charged Stanley as being an accomplice in committing this burglary. As a result of this both parties were arrested and charged and eventually indicted and tried for the burglary of this drugstore.
The twenty-two assignments of error by Stanley are succinctly summarized by the State as making four questions, to wit:
In the main, the contention is that the corroboration relied upon by the State in support of the testimony of Surratt, an accomplice, is not sufficient to base a conviction of Stanley on. The corroboration that the State relies on might and is summarized by the State as follows:
'1. The plaintiff in error and Surratt were together in Adamsville on the night in question and each time they were seen by any disinterested persons they were together.
'2. Both Surratt and the plaintiff in error left Adamsville together and went to the home of some woman nearby.
'3. At the home of these women there was recovered a pen and pencil set taken during the breaking of this store.
'4. It seems that on the night in question another building in Adamsville was entered and witnesses testify to having seen the plaintiff in error inside this other building with Surratt nearby.
The sheriff says in his testimony that Stanley admitted being present when this robbery was committed but denied playing any part therein or having any thing to do with the robbery. We have very carefully read this record and the record clearly and fully supports the contentions made by the State as to corroboration above quoted.
The sufficiency of evidence required to corroborate an accomplice is well set forth in Clapp v. State, 94 Tenn. 186, 30 S.W.2d 214, 217, as follows:
This Court has likewise held that rather slight circumstances may be sufficient to furnish necessary corroboration. Winfree v. State, 174 Tenn. 72, 123 S.W.2d 827. The sufficiency of corroborating evidence where the testimony of an accomplice is in the main depended upon, depends upon the particular facts of each case. The weight of this testimony, that is, of the accomplice, corroborating the accomplice are ordinarily questions for the jury to determine. Wharton's Criminal Evidence, Vol. 2, Section 754, page 1272.
It is not necessary that the corroboration extend to every part of the accomplices evidence. The same authority last above quoted from says.
Section 753, page 1271, supra.
It seems to us that the only human and logical conclusion that humans could come to under...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Griffis
...489 S.W.2d at 56.30 Sparks, 727 S.W.2d at 483; Henley, 489 S.W.2d at 56.31 Sparks, 727 S.W.2d at 483.32 Stanley v. State, 189 Tenn. 110, 116-17, 222 S.W.2d 384, 387 (1949).33 Sparks, 727 S.W.2d at 483; Stanley, 189 Tenn. at 116-17, 222 S.W.2d at 387; Bolton v. State, 591 S.W.2d 446, 448 (Te......
-
State v. Harmon & Golden
...function entrusted to the jury as the trier of fact. Sherrill v. State, 204 Tenn. 427, 434, 321 S.W.2d 811 (1959); Stanley v. State, 189 Tenn. 110, 222 S.W.2d 384, 386 (1949). As to the defendant Harmon, the evidence established that he fully participated in the crime with Williams. The tes......
-
State v. Wyatt, W2000-01672-CCA-R3-CD
...omitted). Whether an accomplice's testimony is sufficiently corroborated is a matter entrusted to the jury. Stanley v. State, 189 Tenn. 110, 117-18, 222 S.W.2d 384, 387 (1949). The evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the state reveals, through the accomplices' testimony, that the......
-
Garton v. State
...accomplice in the commission of a crime, is to be found in a most able opinion by Mr. Justice Burnett in the case of Stanley v. State, 189 Tenn. 110, 222 S.W.2d 384, 386, from which we quote the following "The degree of evidence which shall be deemed sufficient to corroborate the testimony ......