Case Name: Gregory N. ALDRIDGE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andrew MULLINS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1973-03-06
Citations: 474 F.2d 1189
Docket Number: No. 72-1681
Parties: Gregory N. ALDRIDGE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andrew MULLINS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 474
Pages: 1189–1192

Head Matter:
Gregory N. ALDRIDGE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andrew MULLINS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 72-1681.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Argued Dec. 6, 1972.
Decided March 6, 1973.
O’Sullivan, Senior Circuit Judge, dissented and filed opinion.
James H. Harris, III, Metropolitan Atty., Nashville, Tenn., on brief, for defendant-appellant.
Lionel R. Barrett, Jr., Nashville, Tenn., on brief, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before KENT, Circuit Judge, and Mc-ALLISTER and O’SULLIVAN, Senior Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal after a trial to the Court without a jury which resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff-appellee for $10,000 compensatory damages and $3,-000 punitive damages. The parties will be referred to as in the court below.
Suit was brought by the plaintiff after he suffered a gunshot wound on September 30, 1970. The facts are in dispute, but viewing the evidence in the best light for the plaintiff it appears that he and some other young people, some less than and some more than 21, were engaged in some horse play at about 11:00 p. m. on the day in question. The defendant is a police officer in the Metropolitan Police Department of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee. Defendant and his partner were cruising in a motor vehicle when they saw some individuals, never identified, in the vicinity of a closed office building. They had no report or evidence that any crime had been committed. Defendant and his partner stopped their cruiser, the individuals ran, and shortly thereafter defendant saw the plaintiff in a field in the area. Plaintiff claims that he was shot at this time. This is denied by the defendant, although the defendant admits that he fired his gun. There was no evidence of any other shooting of any gun involving or near the plaintiff at any other pertinent time.
In his appeal the defendant claims the trial court's findings of fact were clearly erroneous when the Court concluded that the plaintiff was shot by the defendant, that the circumstances of said shooting amounted to a breach of the plaintiff's Constitutional and Civil Rights in violation of Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The defendant also asserts that the trial court was in error in awarding punitive awards.
After full consideration of the record, the briefs and arguments of counsel, we are satisfied that the trial court's findings of facts are not clearly erroneous and that únder the circumstances surrounding this shooting, where the defendant had no reason to believe that a crime had been committed and no justification for drawing his gun, and certainly no justification for firing his gun, the award of punitive damages was not error. We find no other allegations of error which require discussion.
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.