Home/Tennessee Supreme Court/Clark v. State

Clark v. State

381 S.W.2d 898, 214 Tenn. 555, 18 McCanless 555, 1964 Tenn. LEXIS 506
CourtTennessee Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 15, 1964
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 381 S.W.2d 898 (Clark v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Tennessee Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Clark v. State, 381 S.W.2d 898, 214 Tenn. 555, 18 McCanless 555, 1964 Tenn. LEXIS 506 (Tenn. 1964).

Opinions

Mr. Chief Justice BurNett

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The defendant, Felton N. Clark, was found guilty of an assault with intent to commit a felony in violation of sec. 39-603, T.C.A. For this offense his penalty was fixed at eleven months and twenty-nine days on the county [557]*557road and to pay a fine of $500.00. From this conviction, he has appealed in error to this Conrt. His case is before us on the technical record only, there being no bill of exceptions, The case was not argued before this Court, and no assignments of error were filed in this Court; but we have considered the record before us, as is our duty in felony cases under the provisions of sec. 40-3409, T.C.A.

The technical record shows that after the indictment was returned charging the defendant with the violation of sec. 39-603, T.C.A., with an attempt to commit a felony, he appeared by counsel and filed a plea of not guilty. The charge of the court is in the technical record, and from it we reach the conclusion that the facts were heard pro and con on the matter before the jury returned its verdict, as above indicated.

The record shows that defendant was represented by able counsel at his trial. The motion for a new trial primarily raised the question that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. Obviously, this is a fact question where, in the absence of a bill of exceptions, the presumption certainly is that the evidence abundantly supports the findings of the jury against the defendant on the issue raised.

We have carefully reviewed this technical record and find no error therein. It results that we must affirm the defendant’s conviction.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Elder
697 S.W.2d 359 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, 1985)
State v. Staggs
554 S.W.2d 620 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1977)
Lee v. State
542 S.W.2d 379 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, 1976)
Hudson v. State
534 S.W.2d 322 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1975)
Halpin v. State
515 S.W.2d 658 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, 1974)
McDonald v. State
512 S.W.2d 636 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, 1974)
Arendall v. State
509 S.W.2d 838 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, 1974)
Hall v. State
503 S.W.2d 210 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, 1973)
Francis v. State
498 S.W.2d 107 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1973)
Leek v. State
392 S.W.2d 456 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1965)
Clark v. State
381 S.W.2d 898 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1964)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
381 S.W.2d 898, 214 Tenn. 555, 18 McCanless 555, 1964 Tenn. LEXIS 506, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-state-tenn-1964.