Usary v. State
Decision Date | 18 January 1938 |
Parties | USARY v. STATE. |
Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Sullivan County; Shelbourne Ferguson Judge.
C. A Usary was convicted of driving carelessly and heedlessly and in wanton disregard of the rights of others, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
John R Todd, Jr., of Kingsport, for plaintiff in error.
Nat Tipton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Plaintiff in error was indicted under two counts, the first charging driving while drunk, and the second driving "carelessly and heedlessly and in wanton disregard of the rights and safety of others." At the May term, 1936, he was tried and the jury reported not guilty upon the first count of the indictment, but that they could not agree as to the second count. The court thereupon accepted the verdict as to the first count, driving while drunk, and sent the jury back with instructions to consider further the second count only. The record shows that the next day the court entered a mistrial, the jury not having been able to reach an agreement, and the case was continued for trial upon the second count to the next term. At the September term following, plaintiff in error filed a plea of autrefois acquit, alleging, in substance, the facts above stated, and further averring that thereupon counsel representing the defendant moved the court
This plea was overruled by the court and at the following May term plaintiff in error was put upon trial on the second count and convicted thereon and his punishment fixed at a fine of $50 and ten days' confinement in the county jail, from which judgment he has appealed.
While an assignment in this court raises the question of the preponderance of the evidence, we do not think any detailed discussion of this assignment is called for. There is positive testimony by several witnesses, officers and others, that there had been a wreck on the highway between Kingsport and Bristol on a certain night and that plaintiff in error drove his car at high speed and in a generally reckless manner upon and into the midst of the scene, where a number of cars were parked and several had been wrecked, and ran violently into and against one or more of them. While the defendant took the stand and undertook to dispute this testimony and deny the charge, and introduced one or two witnesses in his behalf, it cannot be seriously contended that there is a preponderance of evidence against the verdict.
The question most earnestly argued arises on the plea in abatement, to which reference has been made. This plea is based upon the contention that the action of the trial court in receiving the verdict of not guilty upon the first count of the indictment amounted in law to an acquittal upon the second count, the question presented being whether or not a trial judge may receive a verdict upon one or more counts of an indictment, where the trial jury is unable to reach an agreement upon all counts, without discharging the accused as having been once put in jeopardy as to the second count.
It is conceded by counsel for the accused and for the State that the precise question has not been directly passed upon in this State in any reported case. However, as stated in the brief of the Attorney General, the rule is well settled in Tennessee that each count is, in legal contemplation, a separate indictment and must contain all the averments necessary to constitute the offense sought to be charged in such count. For the rule that each count must be a complete indictment in itself, see Rice v. State, 50 Tenn. 215, 221, 3 Heisk. 215, 221. And that each is regarded as charging a distinct offense, see Campbell v. State, 17 Tenn. 333, 9 Yerg. 333, 30 Am.Dec. 417; Esmon v. State, 31 Tenn. 14, 1 Swan. 14; Boyd v. State, 47 Tenn. 69, 7 Cold. 69; State v. Lea, 41 Tenn. 175, 1 Cold. 175. In the Esmon Case, supra, it was said, etc. In this case and in Boyd v. State, supra, where like language is used, the court limited the plea of jeopardy to those counts on which a verdict had been reached, thus, by clear implication indicating that the plea would not apply to a count as to which no verdict had been reached.
Certainly, if plaintiff in error had been separately indicted for the two offenses it could not be successfully insisted that an acquittal upon one of these charges would operate to discharge him under his plea of former jeopardy; and, since separate counts of an indictment are in legal contemplation each separate indictments, we are unable to see how the failure of the jury to agree as to both counts of one indictment would so operate.
Under the facts here appearing the defendant got the full benefit of the verdict of the jury on the count as to which an agreement was reached. We cannot conceive how he has been in any wise prejudiced, or in any sense put twice in jeopardy other or further than in any case in which an accused is subjected to a second trial following a mistrial resulting from failure of the jury to agree on a verdict on the first trial. It is, of course, well settled that the plea of former jeopardy is not available in such case.
The learned Attorney General has so well expressed what we conceive to be correct views of this question, that we quote at length from his brief, including the authorities cited:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Bolsinger
...N.E. 322; People v. McMurchy, 249 Mich. 147, 228 N.W. 723; People v. Grogan, 260 N.Y. 138, 183 N.E. 273, 86 A.L.R. 1266; Usary v. State, 172 Tenn. 305, 112 S.W.2d 7, 114 A.L.R. 1401. --------- ...
-
Chambers v. State
... ... 643; Street v. State, 179 Ga. 636(2), 176 S.E. 633; ... Lanier v. State, 187 Ga. 534, 539, 1 S.E.2d 405; ... Mills v. State, 193 Ga. 139(3), 17 S.E.2d 719. See ... generally, as to identity of offenses and former jeopardy, ... Harris v. State, 193 Ga. 109, 17 S.E.2d 573; ... Usary v. State of Tennessee, 172 Tenn. 305, 112 ... S.W.2d 7, 114 A.L.R. 1401 ... It has ... been held that every statutory felony, when incorporated into ... the criminal law, becomes subject to existing regulations as ... to accessories, indictment, evidence, and procedure ... ...
-
State v. Midgett
... ... is whether an acquittal of the defendant on a charge of ... reckless driving will bar a further prosecution for ... manslaughter when the two charges stem from the same ... occurrence. The pertinent authorities answer in the negative ... Usary v. State, 172 Tenn. 305, 112 S.W.2d 7, 114 ... A.L.R. 1401; State v. Yuse, 191 Wash. 1, 70 P.2d ... 797; People v. Townsend, 214 Mich. 267, 183 N.W ... 177, 16 A.L.R. 902; State v. Empey, 65 Utah 609, 239 ... P. 25, 44 A.L.R. 558; Henson v. Commonwealth, 165 ... Va. 829, 183 S.E. 438; ... ...
-
State v. Magaha
... ... proper, or so as to endanger life, limb or property is not ... void for indefiniteness. Commonwealth v. Pentz, 247 ... Mass. 500, 143 N.E. 322; State v. Andrews, 108 Conn ... 209, 142 A. 840; State v. Smith, 29 R.I. 245, 69 A ... 1061; Usary v. State, 172 Tenn. 305, 112 S.W.2d 7, ... 114 A.L.R. 1401; State v. Schaeffer, 96 Ohio St ... 215, 117 N.E. 220, L.R.A.1918B, 945, Ann.Cas.1918E, 1137; ... Schier v. State, 96 Ohio St. 245, 117 N.E. 229; ... Smith v. State, 186 Ind. 252, 115 N.E. 943; ... Gallaher v. State, 193 Ind. 629, 141 ... ...