Court Opinion

ID: 9767983
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:37:41.03762+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:35.350793
License: Public Domain

HENRY, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent.
I agree with the factual recitation of the majority opinion but do not agree that they make out a case of first degree murder. Under this record one armed man shot another armed man after other shots had been fired by each, either at or in close proximity of the other.
As the majority points out, “the deceased had been the center of family controversy” for about four hours. He had cursed and abused his mother and had used ugly and profane language to her. He had discharged his pistol several times and, in a fit of temper, had even shot into a duck pen, killing at least one duck and wounding several others.
There is no escape from the conclusion that he had used up all his pistol ammunition and had left home shortly before the shooting for the sole purpose of purchasing more pistol ammunition. As a minimum, he was a “pistol toting” trouble maker.
In my view either the defendant or the deceased could have shot the other under a well-founded fear of death or the infliction of great bodily harm. It was inevitable that this “running fracas” would lead to bloodshed. This tragedy came as a result of their joint, mutual and concurrent criminal conduct. I am unwilling to visit upon the survivor of this duel in the dark the penalty of a first degree murder conviction and sentence.
Once the fact of the killing has been established, the law presumes that it was murder in the second degree. Witt v. *487State, 46 Term. 5 (1868); Shanklin v. State, 491 S.W.2d 97 (Tenn.Cr.App.1972).
In my opinion, defendant was guilty of second degree murder.