Staples v. State

• Decision Date: 02 October 1890
• Parties: STAPLES v. STATE.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

14 S.W. 603

89 Tenn. 231

STAPLES v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

October 2, 1890

Appeal from circuit court, Morgan county; S. A. ROGERS, Judge.

Sam E Young and W. A. Henderson, for appellant.

Atty Gen. G. W. Pickle, for the State.

LURTON J.

The appellant in error has been convicted of manslaughter. He did not testify as a witness in his own behalf. The attorney representing the state, in his argument to the jury commented upon certain threats testified to as having been made by the deceased, in the presence and hearing of the defendant, by saying that "Mr. Henderson argued that Staples heard the threat that he (Stall) would cut his throat before sundown. Now, he never heard it. If he did, little Sam did not tell you so, and Staples himself did not tell you so. Now, Mr. Staples could tell you, if he would speak, that the blow he got did not hurt him. He (Staples) does not tell you that he did that stabbing in self-defense." It is not distinctly stated in the bill of exceptions that this language at the time was excepted to, but the circuit judge in the bill of exceptions, annexes an explanation in these words: "The language of Gratz seems to the court subject to different constructions; and, not understanding with certainty that he should be understood as referring to the fact that defendant had not testified, no interruption was had." From this we infer that defendant's counsel did object, and that his objection was over-ruled, for the reason stated above. This was error. The Act of 1887, c. 79 permits the defendant in a criminal trial, "at his own request, but not otherwise," to testify as a witness therein. The act further provides "that the failure of the parties defendant to make such request, and to testify in his own behalf, shall not create any presumption against him." This provision is in accord with the bill of rights, wherein it is provided that in all criminal prosecutions the defendant "shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself." No inferences of guilt can be drawn from the failure of a defendant to testify for himself. Were it otherwise, a defendant on trial might be put in the awful situation of being required to commit perjury to avoid the consequence of his failure to avail himself of the privilege extended him by the statute. The statute might thus become an ingenious machine to compel a conscientious defendant to testify against himself. The circuit judge...