Vandegriff v. State

• Decision Date: 14 November 1966
• Citation: 219 Tenn. 302,409 S.W.2d 370,23 McCanless 302
• Parties: , 219 Tenn. 302 Herman Clifford VANDEGRIFF, alias Herman Clifford Vandergriff, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE of Tennessee, Defendant in Error.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

Page 370

409 S.W.2d 370

23 McCanless 302, 219 Tenn. 302

Herman Clifford VANDEGRIFF, alias Herman Clifford Vandergriff, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE of Tennessee, Defendant in Error.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

Nov. 14, 1966.

Roy A. Scruggs, Chattanooga, for plaintiff in error.

George F. McCanless, Atty. Gen., Edgar P. Calhoun, Asst. Atty. Gen., Nashville, and Edward E. Davis, Dist. Atty. Gen., Chattanooga, in the trial court, for defendant in error.

OPINION

CRESON, Justice.

This appeal comes from the Criminal Court of Hamilton County, Tennessee. The parties will be referred to herein as they appeared in the trial court; that is, plaintiff in error Herman Clifford Vandegriff as the defendant, and defendant in error as the State.

On February 16, 1966, the defendant was indicted for unlawfully, feloniously, willfully, deliberately and maliciously murdering one Linda Gail Tinker and one Nancy Bloodworth, by voluntarily being in a drunken condition from intoxicating beverages and knowingly driving an automobile at a dangerous, reckless and unlawful speed, and in a grossly negligent manner and in willful and wanton disregard of other persons or property, and knowing that the same was perilous to the life, limb and property of other persons. A second count of the indictment charged the defendant with driving while intoxicated. On April 22, 1966, the defendant was tried for the charges contained in the aforementioned indictment. A jury found the defendant guilty, under the first count, of involuntary manslaughter, and fixed his punishment at not more than five years in the State penitentiary. The trial court entered judgment sentencing the defendant to a term of not less than one year nor more than five years in the State penitentiary. The defendant timely filed a motion for new trial, which was overruled on May 9, 1966. Appeal has been perfected to this Court.

The assignments of error filed on behalf of the defendant in this Court are as follows:

'It was error:

1. For the Trial Court to allow witness H. E. Baker to testify as to any conversation between him and Carl Bray that took place in the emergency room at Erlanger Hospital. Such testimony was hearsay and not admissible. Although this testimony was made in the physical presence of the defendant, his condition was such that he could not comprehend the meaning of such conversation, if in fact he heard it.

2. For the Trial Court to allow witness H. E. Baker to testify as to statements allegedly made to him by the defendant while the defendant was in the emergency room at Erlanger Hospital. The introduction of this testimony over the defendant's objections violated the defendant's constitutional right against self-incrimination and his right of due process. Defendant was in no physical condition to voluntarily waive any of his constitutional rights at this time and the introduction in evidence of Baker's testimony was prejudicial to defendant.

3. For the Trial Court to overrule defendant's motion for a new trial because the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict in that there is no testimony in the record which shows that the two girls found at the scene of the accident are the same two who were later pronounced dead at Erlanger Hospital, except that they have the same names.'

This Court finds it necessary to consider only defendant's assignment of error 2.

This assignment of error asserts that the trial court erred in allowing Police Officer H. E. Baker to testify as to statements allegedly made by the defendant to him while the defendant was in the Emergency Room at the Erlanger Hospital. It is urged that the admission of this testimony violated defendant's constitutional right not to make any statements that might incriminate him, and his constitutional right to due process.

The record in this case reveals that the statements of the defendant testified to by Officer Baker were allegedly made shortly after the defendant's arrival at the Emergency Room of the Erlanger Hospital. According to Officer Baker's testimony, shortly prior to the time these statements were taken, Officer Baker had answered a call to a point on Riverside Drive, in Chattanooga, Tennessee. This was at 2:34 A.M., on the 16th of November, 1965. When he arrived at the scene of the accident to which he was called, an officer, Lee Mosley, was already on the scene. At the scene of the accident, he found two white females, both of whom he believed to be dead. One of these females was outside the wrecked automobile; the other was on the passenger side of the front seat.

He found the defendant lying unconscious in the front seat of the wrecked automobile. The defendant was in or near to what is commonly referred to as the driver's seat of the automobile. Also on the scene was a Mr. Bray, a passenger, who was standing outside the automobile at the time Officer Baker arrived. The defendant and the two white females, identified as Linda Gail Tinker and Nancy Bloodworth, were sent to the Erlanger Hospital, by ambulance. It was almost immediately after the defendant's arrival at the hospital that the statements admitted into evidence were taken from him. The defendant testified that he did not fully regain consciousness until after he had been sent from the Emergeny Room to the Intensive Care Ward. A Dr. James L. Holcomb, who treated the defendant in the Emergency Room, testified that the defendant appeared sleepy and groggy at the time of his arrival at the hospital. He further testified that X-rays revealed that the defendant had suffered a line fracture of his skull on the right side, a fractured nose, a fractured bone in his face, and a fracture of the flora of the eye socket. A final diagnosis as to the condition of the defendant, made by another doctor, was that the defendant had...