Case Title: Blankenship v. State

Citation: 410 S.W.2d 159

Docket Number: 

State: tennessee

Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

Date: 1966-12-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
410 S.W.2d 159 (1966) John Ronald BLANKENSHIP, Leslie Norwood Carter, Jerry Lloyd McGill, Plaintiffs in Error, v. STATE of Tennessee, Defendant in Error. Supreme Court of Tennessee. December 20, 1966. *160 Hugh W. Stanton, Jr., Memphis, for John Ronald Blankenship. Cordell Hull Sloan, Memphis, for Leslie Norwood Carter and Jerry Lloyd McGill. George F. McCanless, Atty. Gen., Edgar P. Calhoun, Asst. Atty. Gen., Nashville for defendant in error. Phil M. Canale, Jr., Dist. Atty. Gen., Memphis, prosecuted the case for the State in the trial court. CRESON, Justice. This appeal comes from the Criminal Court of Shelby County, Tennessee. The parties will be referred to herein as they appeared in the trial court; that is, plaintiffs in error John Ronald Blankenship, Leslie Norwood Carter and Jerry Lloyd McGill as defendants, and defendant in error as the State. On March 31, 1964, the defendants were indicted for robbery by the use of a deadly weapon. On October 12, 1965, the defendants were tried and found guilty as charged in the indictment. Their punishment was fixed at twenty-five years in the State Penitentiary. Judgment was entered in accord with the jury's verdict. Motion for a new trial was timely made and overruled. Appeal has been perfected to this Court. It is only necessary for this Court to consider one assignment of error, the point of which is raised by both counsel for Blankenship and counsel for Carter and McGill. The substance of this assignment may be fairly stated as it appears from the brief of the State: The question and answer referred to in this assignment of error appears in the record, as follows: The question in the previously quoted excerpt from the record was asked by the Assistant Attorney General. The trial judge, after a hearing out of the presence of the jury on motion for mistrial, ordered the jury not to consider this testimony. However, it is argued by counsel for the defendants that the admission of this testimony required the trial judge to declare a mistrial, as it was prejudicial to the defendants, even though the jury was instructed to disregard it. It is the well settled law of this State that when incompetent proof, such as this certainly is, and is admitted to be by the State, is introduced before a jury, and the trial judge thereafter definitely withdrew it, as was done here, it is no cause for reversal, unless real doubt is raised as to whether the judicial warning against its *161 consideration was effective. We here apply the rule of Clarke v. State (1966) 218 Tenn. 259, 402 S.W.2d 863, as follows: From the record and the briefs in this case, we find ourselves unable to say that the evidence erroneously admitted was not prejudicial to the defendants. Neither can we say that it did not affect or contribute to the verdict rendered. The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the case remanded for new trial. BURNETT, C. J., DYER and CHATTIN, JJ., and HARBISON, Sp. J., concur.