Case Title: Messer v. State

Citation: 385 S.W.2d 98

Docket Number: 

State: tennessee

Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

Date: 1964-12-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
385 S.W.2d 98 (1964) G.B. MESSER, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE of Tennessee, Defendant in Error. Supreme Court of Tennessee. December 11, 1964. *99 Porter & Porter, Edward F. Hurd, Newport, for plaintiff in error. George F. McCanless, Atty. Gen., Edgar P. Calhoun, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error. HOLMES, Justice. The plaintiff in error, G.B. Messer, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was convicted of murder in the second degree. He was sentenced to serve not less than ten years nor more than ten years in the State Penitentiary. It is uncontroverted that on the night of January 9, 1962 the defendant shot and killed one Bill Ball. The shooting occurred in the defendant's home, in which Ball together with his wife and two children were then living. Mrs. Ball has been raised by the defendant and his wife. At the time of the trial the defendant was 82 years of age. The deceased was 43 years of age when he was killed. It is the contention of the defendant that he acted in his own necessary self defense in shooting and killing the deceased. In overruling the motion for new trial, one of the grounds of which was that the verdict of the jury was contrary to the weight of the evidence, the Trial Judge made a rather lengthy statement, in part, as follows: In his remarks overruling motion for new trial, the Trial Judge further stated: Much more was stated by the Trial Judge indicating his belief that the evidence did not sustain the verdict of the jury finding the defendant guilty of murder in the second degree. In State v. Ferguson, 165 Tenn. 61, 64, 52 S.W.2d 140, 141, this Court stated: In Curran v. State, 157 Tenn. 7, 13, 4 S.W.2d 957, 958, the duty of a Trial Judge to exercise his function as a thirteenth juror in a criminal case is stated, as follows: In Temples v. State, 183 Tenn. 531, 539, 194 S.W.2d 332, 335, the Court pointed out that "the trial court is the forum in which the guilt or innocence of a defendant is primarily determined; and the presiding judge wields the scales of justice between the State and the defendant, and where, in his opinion, the defendant is not proved *101 guilty, it is his duty to grant him a new trial. When the trial judge simply overrules a motion for a new trial presumably he approves the verdict, but such is not the case where he affirmatively states that he passes upon neither the guilt nor innocence of the defendant, and is glad that such responsibility does not rest upon him." In Temples, this Court found that there was nothing to indicate that the Trial Judge did not approve the degree of homicide of which the defendant was convicted. Therefore, in that case, the judgment of the Trial Court was affirmed. Here, the Trial Judge expressly indicated that he did not approve the degree of homicide of which the defendant was convicted. Therefore, the judgment of the Trial Court is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.