Low v. State

65 S.W. 401, 108 Tenn. 127
CourtTennessee Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 9, 1901
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 65 S.W. 401 (Low 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
Low v. State, 65 S.W. 401, 108 Tenn. 127 (Tenn. 1901).

Opinion

Caldwell, J.

Riley Low is under sentence of death, for the murder of his young step-son, Louis Mullins, by poisoning.

At the trial, the grandmother of the child testified that he stated to her, in the presence and hearing of the defendant, that he had administered the poison, and that the defendant remained silent. She also testified that when the child died, his mother brought the same accusation against the defendant, and that he positively denied it.

The former of these statements by the witness was competent testimony; the latter was incompetent.

If a man be accused of an offense, and, hearing the accusation, neither admit nor deny it, when he should know the truth and may speak, proof of the imputation having been made, and of his silence, is competent as an implied admission, or a circumstance tending to show his guilt; but if . he make positive denial, the imputation constitutes a mere unsworn charge, and proof of it has no legal force or competency. Kendrick v. The State, 9 Hum., 723; Deatheridge v. The State, 1 Sneed, 80.

The Court not only made the mistake of admitting the incompetent testimony mentioned, but, in the charge upon the law of the case, expressly submitted it to the consideration of the jury with[129]*129out any instruction as to its effect, or the legal force of the defendant’s denial.

Having been erroneously admitted in the first instance, the incompetent testimony should after-wards have been withdrawn in the charge.

We express no opinion on the facts of the case, but place our reversal entirely upon the errors indicated.

The objection that the indictment copied into the. transcript does not contain the endorsement, “A True Bill,” is removed by a supplemental transcript supplying that defect. This is true, though the supplement has been made and filed since the argument of the case in this Court.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Related

Lovvorn v. State
241 S.W.2d 419 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1951)
Griffith v. Commonwealth
63 S.W.2d 594 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1933)
Mumford v. State
70 So. 399 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1915)
Gibbons v. Territory
1911 OK CR 66 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1911)
State v. Mungeon
108 N.W. 552 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1906)
Rice v. State
94 S.W. 1024 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1906)
Phelan v. State
114 Tenn. 483 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1904)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
65 S.W. 401, 108 Tenn. 127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/low-v-state-tenn-1901.