Court Opinion

ID: 9762273
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:18:41.182706+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:32.627741
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing.
A petition to rehear has been filed on behalf of Henry Clay Monts.
In his petition, counsel argues that this Court was in error when we said, in our original opinion, that Monts did not request a charge on the law of circumstantial evidence. Counsel directs our attention to his motion for a new trial wherein he alleged that the trial court erred in refusing to grant Monts’ special request for a charge on the law of circumstantial evidence. But counsel does not point to any place in the bill of exceptions where this special request can be found. The motion for a new trial cannot supply this information. It is well settled in this State, that a motion for a new trial is nothing but a pleading, and cannot be looked to as establishing facts that it alleges. Hagood v. State, 183 Tenn. 49, 190 S.W.2d 1023 (1945); Hargrove v. State, 199 Tenn. 25, 281 S.W.2d *194692 (1955). The rale is well stated in the case of Wynn v. State, 181 Tenn. 325, 181 S.W.2d 332 (1944):
“Error is assigned npon the refusal of the trial judge to give a request. The only evidence that such request was made is a statement to that effect in the motion for a new trial. This is not sufficient, as we have repeatedly held, the motion for a new trial being nothing hut a pleading. * * * There is no showing as to a request in the bill of exceptions.”
We have diligently searched the hill of exceptions for some evidence that Monts made such a request. We can find none. The only requests in the bill of exceptions are those submitted by Johnnie West and they are actually labeled, “Special Requests on behalf of John West,” and are signed by Mr. Stanton, West’s trial counsel.
We must deny the petition to rehear for the reasons above stated.
On Second Petition to Rehear.
Heretofore we denied Monts ’ petition to rehear because no special requests were presented in writing requesting a charge on circumstantial evidence. We were compelled to reverse the conviction as to West because such requests were in the record and had not been given. Since our denying Monts’ petition to rehear for this reason, the Clerk of the Criminal Court of Shelby County has filed with the Clerk of this Court a certificate enclosing a number of copies of special requests that were asked for by Monts on the trial of this case and include the identical proposition we reversed the West case on. For this reason alone the Monts case is likewise reversed and remanded for a new trial.