State v. Smith
| Citation | 1 Tenn.Crim.App. 163,432 S.W.2d 501 |
| Parties | STATE of Tennessee, Plaintiff in Error, v. Willis SMITH, Defendant in Error. |
| Decision Date | 07 June 1968 |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals |
George F. McCanless, Atty. Gen., George W. McHenry, J., Asst. Atty. Gen., James R. Omer, Asst. Dist. Atty. Gen., Nashville, for plaintiff in error.
James Havron, Public Defender, Nashville, for defendant in error.
In this case, the State appeals from the judgment of the Criminal Court of Davidson County sustaining the defendant's motion to quash the following presentment: 'That Willis Smith heretofore, and prior to the finding of this indictment, to-wit, on the _ _ day of June, 1967, with force and arms, in the County aforesaid, unlawfully and feloniously did make an assault upon the bodies of Mrs. Betty Brown and Mrs. Clara Jones, and them the said Mrs. Betty Brown and Mrs. Clara Jones, then and there unlawfully and feloniously put in fear and danger of their life, and then and there unlawfully, feloniously, and violently did steal, take, and carry away from the persons and against the will of the said Mrs. Betty Brown and Mrs. Clara Jones certain property, to-wit: $6,867.00 in good and lawful money of the United States of America of the value of $6,867.00 DOLLARS the property of The Capital City Bank, a corporation, but in the care, custody and control of employees Mrs. Betty Brown and Mrs. Clara Jones, said robbery being accomplished by the use of a deadly weapon, to-wit: a pistol; contrary to the form of the statutes in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Tennessee.'
This presentment was predicated upon T.C.A. § 39--3901. The basis and theory of the defendant's motion to quash this presentment was that the allegation that Mrs. Brown and Mrs. Jones were employees of a bank shows that this was a bank robbery as defined in T.C.A. § 39--3902; and that, inasmuch as the Legislature has enacted this separate statute specifically applicable alone to bank robbery, an indictment or presentment for bank robbery must be laid under T.C.A. § 39--3902 and may not be charged under T.C.A. § 39--3901. Those two statutes are as follows:
T.C.A. § 39--3902. 'Bank robbery--Penalty.--It shall be unlawful for any person to feloniously enter any banking house or place where moneys are kept on deposit and securities of any value deposited for safekeeping and by violence or putting in fear any person therein charged with the custody, care, or keeping of such money or securities of any value, to feloniously take or remove or attempt to take and remove from such banking house any such moneys or securities of any value; and any person so...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Francis v. State
...law of this State is that a motion to quash an indictment lies only where it is defective or invalid upon its face. State v. Smith, 1 Tenn.Cr.App. 163, 432 S.W.2d 501; Yearwood v. State, 2 Tenn.Cr.App. 552, 455 S.W.2d In Raine v. State, 143 Tenn. 168, 186, 226 S.W. 189, 195, the Court succi......
-
Shadden v. State
...firmly established in this State that a motion to quash an indictment will not lie unless it is invalid upon its face. State v. Smith, 1 Tenn.Crim.App. 163, 432 S.W.2d 501; Yearwood v. State, 2 Tenn.Crim.App. 552, 455 S.W.2d 612. The indictment in this case is altogether regular and no inva......
-
State v. Hudson
...the peculiar office of a motion to quash an indictment or presentment is to attack and challenge it for that reason. State v. Smith, 1 Tenn.Cr.App. 163, 432 S.W.2d 501; Smith v. State, 207 Tenn. 219, 338 S.W.2d 610; State v. Davis, 204 Tenn. 553, 322 S.W.2d As stated in each 'bench warrant,......