Reynolds v. State

Tennessee Supreme Court

Reynolds v. State

287 S.W.2d 15, 199 Tenn. 349, 3 McCanless 349, 1956 Tenn. LEXIS 333

CourtTennessee Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 3, 1956

StatusPublished

Cited by16 cases

This text of 287 S.W.2d 15 (Reynolds 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

Reynolds v. State, 287 S.W.2d 15, 199 Tenn. 349, 3 McCanless 349, 1956 Tenn. LEXIS 333 (Tenn. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Burnett

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Reynolds was indicted, tried and convicted for the homicide of one Thelma Smart. His conviction was for *350 second degree murder and lie was sentenced to the penitentiary for not more than 20 years. A motion for new trial was duly filed and he has perfected his appeal. Argument has been heard and we now have the matter for determination.

We have filed herein an opinion dealing with the facts and other incidental questions. We do not deem it of any general interest or information to the Bar to publish this. We do think the question on venue should be published because of first impression in this State. ■

Lastly it is argued that there is no proof of venue in the record. Venue, of course is a jurisdictional matter and need be proven only by the preponderance of the evidence. Norris v. State, 127 Tenn. 437, 155 S. W. 165. The State says that the only case that they can find o,n the question covering the facts herein is a Massachusetts case, that of Commonwealth v. Knowlton, 265 Mass. 382, 163 N. E. 251, 254. This case among other things holds that:

“Upon the question of jurisdiction there was evidence that the body of the deceased was found on the road,' in Concord, within the county of Middle-sex, and there was no other evidence offered as to where the homicide was committed. The finding of the body in Middlesex county was sufficient to giye the court jurisdiction, and warrant the jury in concluding that the homicide was committed in that county. Commonwealth v. Costley, 118 Mass. 1, 26. ’ ’

In the instant case all the proof shows that the body of deceased here was found in Wilson County. There is no proof to the contrary. We think that there must be a presumption that the crime was committed here, rebut-table in character, that the crime was committed-where the body was found when there: is no showing to the corn *351 trary. She was last seen alive in Wilson Connty. She died from a broken neck which apparently would keep her from wandering aronnd any. Her body was found in Wilson County. All the territory between Lebanon and the location of her body lies in Wilson County and she was last seen in Lebanon. Her clothes were found in Wilson County.' It seems to us that under these circumstances the jury was blearly warranted in finding that she was murdered in that County.

The judgment of the trial court must he affirmed for the reasons above set forth.' • r

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

Mr. Justice Burnett

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Reynolds was indicted, tried and convicted for the homicide of one Thelma Smart. His conviction was for *350 second degree murder and lie was sentenced to the penitentiary for not more than 20 years. A motion for new trial was duly filed and he has perfected his appeal. Argument has been heard and we now have the matter for determination.

We have filed herein an opinion dealing with the facts and other incidental questions. We do not deem it of any general interest or information to the Bar to publish this. We do think the question on venue should be published because of first impression in this State. ■

Lastly it is argued that there is no proof of venue in the record. Venue, of course is a jurisdictional matter and need be proven only by the preponderance of the evidence. Norris v. State, 127 Tenn. 437, 155 S. W. 165. The State says that the only case that they can find o,n the question covering the facts herein is a Massachusetts case, that of Commonwealth v. Knowlton, 265 Mass. 382, 163 N. E. 251, 254. This case among other things holds that:

“Upon the question of jurisdiction there was evidence that the body of the deceased was found on the road,' in Concord, within the county of Middle-sex, and there was no other evidence offered as to where the homicide was committed. The finding of the body in Middlesex county was sufficient to giye the court jurisdiction, and warrant the jury in concluding that the homicide was committed in that county. Commonwealth v. Costley, 118 Mass. 1, 26. ’ ’

In the instant case all the proof shows that the body of deceased here was found in Wilson County. There is no proof to the contrary. We think that there must be a presumption that the crime was committed here, rebut-table in character, that the crime was committed-where the body was found when there: is no showing to the corn *351 trary. She was last seen alive in Wilson Connty. She died from a broken neck which apparently would keep her from wandering aronnd any. Her body was found in Wilson County. All the territory between Lebanon and the location of her body lies in Wilson County and she was last seen in Lebanon. Her clothes were found in Wilson County.' It seems to us that under these circumstances the jury was blearly warranted in finding that she was murdered in that County.

The judgment of the trial court must he affirmed for the reasons above set forth.' • r

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 S.W.2d 15, 199 Tenn. 349, 3 McCanless 349, 1956 Tenn. LEXIS 333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reynolds-v-state-tenn-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack