Vaughn v. State
| Decision Date | 06 September 1977 |
| Citation | 557 S.W.2d 64 |
| Parties | Ricky VAUGHN, Petitioner, v. STATE of Tennessee, Respondent. 557 S.W.2d 64 |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
This petition for the common law writ of certiorari raises the single question of the proper construction of Sec. 40-1131, T.C.A., relating to preliminary hearings.
Petitioner was arrested on 14 June 1977, pursuant to a four-count indictment found by the Dyer County Grand Jury. No prior warrant of arrest was issued and no preliminary hearing was held.
In the trial court, Petitioner (1) moved for a preliminary hearing, (2) filed a plea in abatement, and (3) moved to dismiss the indictment. All were grounded upon Sec. 40-1131, T.C.A., and all were overruled by the trial judge.
Sec. 40-1131, T.C.A., reads as follows:
40-1131. Right to preliminary hearing. In all criminal cases, prior to presentment and indictment, whether the charge be a misdemeanor or a felony, the accused shall be entitled to a preliminary hearing, whether the grand jury of the county be in session or not.
If the accused is indicted during the period of time in which his preliminary hearing is being continued, or at any time before accused has been afforded a preliminary hearing on a warrant, he may abate the indictment upon motion to the court. Provided, however, that no such motion for abatement shall be granted after the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of the accused's arrest.
The first paragraph of § 40-1131 was passed on May 12, 1971. The second paragraph was effective April 4, 1974.
A preliminary hearing is not constitutionally required. Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S. 1, 90 S.Ct. 1999, 26 L.Ed.2d 387 (1970); McKeldin v. State, 516 S.W.2d 82 (Tenn.1974); McCracken v. State, 529 S.W.2d 724 (Tenn.Crim.App.1975).
While this statute is not a model of clarity, we think its import is properly set forth in Harris v. State, 534 S.W.2d 868, 870 (Tenn.Crim.App.1975).
This language clearly applie(d) only to a situation wherein an accused has been arrested on a warrant prior to indictment, and has no application to the situation in the case sub judice, wherein the very first action against the accused was the return of the indictment. . . .
If the Legislature means to say that no person shall be indicted and put to trial on an indictment until they have first had a preliminary hearing then the wording of T.C.A. § 40-1131 will have to be changed. The statute, as written in 1971 and added to in 1974, only covers the case of one arrested on a charge and not given a preliminary hearing prior to indictment. It has no application to a case wherein the first State action is an indictment or presentment, as here. Obviously, a post-indictment "preliminary hearing" would be a mutation of procedures creating many procedural problems. If broader discovery procedures are desired by ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Rowe v. Ferguson
...v. Morris, 42 Ohio St.2d 307, 71 Ohio Ops.2d 294, 329 N.E.2d 85 (1975); State v. Sanford, 245 Or. 397, 421 P.2d 988 (1966); Vaughn v. State, 557 S.W.2d 64 (Tenn.1977); Bullard v. State, 533 S.W.2d 812 (Tex.Cr.1976). Relators appear to concede the constitutional issue and base their principa......
-
State v. Thomas
...the motion on the morning of trial, it was denied as untimely. A preliminary hearing is not constitutionally mandated. Vaughn v. State, 557 S.W.2d 64 (Tenn.1977). Vaughn also held that the statute providing for the preliminary hearing had no application when the prosecution began by The def......
-
Nolan v. State
...to a preliminary hearing is statutory only, and not constitutional in nature. McKeldin v. State, supra, 516 S.W.2d at 84; Vaughn v. State, 557 S.W.2d 64 (Tenn.1977); Shadden v. State, 488 S.W.2d 54 (Tenn.Cr.App.1972), Cert. den. 411 U.S. 909, 93 S.Ct. 1538, 36 L.Ed.2d 199 (1973). Likewise, ......
-
State v. Goss
...acknowledges that it was within the prosecutor's discretion to seek an indictment through the grand jury process. See Vaughn v. State, 557 S.W.2d 64, 64-65 (Tenn.1977). However, Hale asserts that Rule 5, Tenn. R.Crim. P., required that a preliminary hearing be conducted. He argues that he w......