State v. King, 17445
| Decision Date | 10 July 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 17445,17445 |
| Citation | 622 S.W.2d 77 |
| Parties | STATE of Tennessee, Appellee, v. Calvin D. KING, Appellant. 622 S.W.2d 77 |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals |
Cleveland Turner, Parker, Turner & Ross, Clarksville, for appellant.
William M. Leech, Jr., Atty. Gen., James A. DeLanis, Asst. Atty. Gen., Nashville, Columbus Wade Bobo, Asst. Dist. Atty. Gen., Clarksville, for appellee.
The defendant, Calvin D. King, was convicted of armed robbery, with punishment fixed at ten years confinement in the State penitentiary. On this appeal, the defendant presents four issues for review:
"(1) There was insufficient proof in the record to justify a finding of guilt in this matter;
(2) The court erred in the charges it charged the jury as to the applicable law in this case;
(3) The District Attorney committed error in his argument to the jury; and
(4) The court erred when it called the jury in during the middle of their deliberation and inquired as to the jury's closeness of a verdict and whether or not the jury should be allowed to go home overnight leaving the indication that the court rushed the jury on this verdict."
In view of the first issue, we will briefly summarize the State's evidence, which the jury accredited by its verdict of guilty. Approximately 1:00 A.M., Mr. Bruce Burke, cleanup man at Hardee's hamburger establishment, went outside after the business closed and noticed a small hatchback automobile with protruding hubcaps near the drive-through area of the restaurant. Burke reentered the store and about five minutes later, a man entered with a woman's stocking over his head and held him up with a shotgun. After unsuccessful efforts to open the safe, the intruder took $10 to $15 from Mr. Burke's wallet and left. Burke immediately telephoned the police. The robber was wearing scuffed military boots, blue jeans and a brown shirt. He had a thick mustache and a receding hairline. The description of the robber and the automobile was broadcast on the police radio.
Minutes later, the policemen observed the defendant parked near the tennis courts at a high school. The defendant told the police that he was there to meet an "old flame" and that he was out of gas. The officers took the defendant to a gas station, went to the scene of the robbery where they obtained a more detailed description of the robber, then returned to the gas station and arrested the defendant. He was taken to Hardee's where Burke positively identified the defendant as the robber and also identified the defendant's blue jeans and shoes. The defendant was not wearing the same shirt worn during the robbery.
Burke was shown the defendant's automobile which he positively identified as being the same vehicle seen by him at Hardee's immediately before the robbery. He likewise identified a .20-gauge shotgun found in the back floorboard of the defendant's automobile as that used in the robbery. He stated that the pair of women's pantyhose found in the defendant's automobile was the same color as the stockings or pantyhose worn over the robber's head during the robbery.
The defendant testified that he had been drinking until about 12:30 P.M. on this night and then went to his home which was next door to Hardee's. He entered the house, turned the television set off and used the bathroom. He then left again to meet a woman whose name he did not know. The defendant's wife was asleep and was not aware of his return home. He denied stopping at Hardee's. He and his witnesses testified that he carried the shotgun in the backseat of his automobile to prevent his child from getting it. He had borrowed the shotgun to shoot dogs in his yard. His wife had left the pantyhose and other items of her clothing in the car a few days earlier.
Considering the evidence as a whole, we find that it meets the standard required by Rule 13(e), ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Draper
...by the Court to the Jury were unclear and confusing". This Court ruled that the issue was waived because it was too broad in scope. In State v. King, supra, issues to the effect that "[t]he court erred in charges it charged the jury as to the applicable law in the case" and "[t]he District ......
-
State v. Matthews
...v. Newsome, 744 S.W.2d 911, 914 (Tenn.Crim.App.1987); State v. Gauldin, 737 S.W.2d 795, 797-798 (Tenn.Crim.App.1987); State v. King, 622 S.W.2d 77, 79 (Tenn.Crim.App.1981); State v. McKinney, 603 S.W.2d 755, 759-760 (Tenn.Crim.App.1980); Leeson v. Chernau, 734 S.W.2d 634, 637 (Tenn.App.1987......
-
State v. Dykes
...by the Court to the Jury were unclear and confusing." This Court ruled that the issue was waived because it was too broad in scope. In State v. King, supra, issues to the effect that "[t]he court erred in the charges it charged the jury as to the applicable law in this case" and "[t]he Dist......
-
State v. Frazier
...to see that the alleged error was presented to the trial court for correction as required by Rule 36(a), T.R.A.P." State v. King, 622 S.W.2d 77, 79 (Tenn.Crim.App.1981). We find that, except for the particular allegations noted above, the grounds relied upon in the motion for a new trial we......