Opinion ID: 2450792
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Fundamental Illegality Exception

Text: The courts have not hesitated to make exceptions to the general rule. One of these is the fundamental illegality rule first enunciated in State ex rel. McMorrow v. Hunt, supra , and culminating in our recent decision in Whitwell v. State, 520 S.W.2d 338 (Tenn. 1975). In Hunt the Court denied the common law writ. The issue was whether the lower court was acting illegally. Without defining that phrase, the Court said: [W]e think it clear that the common law writ ... may not be resorted to for the correction of technical or formal errors, not affecting jurisdiction or power, or for the correction of defects that are not radical, amounting to an illegality that is fundamental, as distinguished from an irregularity. (Emphasis supplied). 137 Tenn. at 249, 192 S.W. at 933. Hunt stressed that [a]n appeal is adequate for the remedying of errors of that sort [fact and law]. Id. at 250, 192 S.W. at 933. No fundamental error was found. Hunt is among the first of numerous cases to stress the availability or adequacy of an appeal. (See ensuing section.) In State v. Odom, 200 Tenn. 231, 292 S.W.2d 23 (1956), the trial judge reduced a jury conviction from first degree murder to murder in the second degree, overruled the state's motion for a new trial and denied the state's prayer for an appeal. The state petitioned for the common law writ. It should be observed that in the literal and conventional sense the trial court had not exceeded the jurisdiction conferred and was not acting illegally in the usual sense of the word. He merely committed a procedural error  an error of law. This Court, however, granted the writ, holding that: his action in reducing the degree of unlawful homicide from that found by the jury is illegal. 200 Tenn. at 235, 292 S.W.2d at 25. Again the Court noted the absence of a plain, speedy, or adequate remedy by appeal. In Taylor v. Continental Tennessee Lines, Inc., 204 Tenn. 556, 322 S.W.2d 425 (1959), relying upon Hunt, supra , and emphasizing a failure to proceed according to the essential requirements of the law,  (emphasis supplied) Id. at 560, 322 S.W.2d at 427, the Court granted the common law writ, holding that the refusal of the trial judge to permit the filing of a plea in abatement was contrary to law and in legal effect amounted to a denial to the defendants of their day in court.  (Emphasis supplied). 204 Tenn. at 560, 322 S.W.2d at 426. In Medic Ambulance Service, Inc. v. McAdams, 216 Tenn. 304, 392 S.W.2d 103 (1965), the procedural background was that a trial judge had ordered the Union Railway Company to produce for inspection and copying the investigative file of its claims agent. Responding to the Company's petition for the common law writ, the Court said: We think the error here complained of amounted to an illegality which is fundamental, as distinguished from an irregularity, a technical or formal error not affecting jurisdiction or power; and, although not a final order or judgment, is, nevertheless, reviewable by the common law writ of certiorari. 216 Tenn. at 321, 392 S.W.2d 111. Finally, in Whitwell , we granted the common law writ, relying upon the Hunt fundamental illegality rule in order to bar a second trial in violation of the defendant's constitutional protection against double jeopardy. Again, in Whitwell , the trial court was not acting illegally nor was it acting in excess of its jurisdiction. The court had ruled erroneously on a matter of law. It is just that simple. Had Whitwell been convicted as a result of a second trial, he would have had a right to appeal; but, absent our grant of the common law writ, he had no full, complete and adequate remedy. This follows from the fact that, absent our grant, he would have suffered the jeopardy of a second trial. In reaching our conclusion in Whitwell , we relied upon a Missouri case, quoted with approval in Conners v. City of Knoxville, 136 Tenn. 428, 189 S.W.2d 870 (1916): The statement that certiorari will not issue where either appeal or error goes, though frequently met with in textwriters, and in some reports, is neither strictly true nor accurate. There are marked exceptions. Thus, where the exigencies of the case are such that the ordinary methods of appeal or error may not prove adequate, either in point of promptness or completeness, so that a partial or total failure of justice may result, then certiorari may issue. (Emphasis supplied). 520 S.W.2d at 342. Again, in the case at bar, the remedy of appeal is not just inadequate, it is non-existent. E.