Court Opinion

ID: 9773608
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:51:33.68105+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:55.526468
License: Public Domain

*456On Petition to Rehear
Mb. Justice Cbeson.
Plaintiff in error, defendant below, has filed a petition to rehear in which he asserts that he is aggrieved by the opinion of this Court in thirteen different instances. The rule regarding petitions to rehear in this Court is that “A rehearing will be refused where no new argument is made, and no new authority adduced, and no material fact is pointed out as overlooked.” Supreme Court Rule 32. None of the points raised by the defendant in his petition to rehear meet this test.
The defendant does make one argument, citing a prior decision which involves an inherently close question. Thus, we have chosen to re-examine that contention. It is that our holding the trial judge was not in error for failing to charge the jury on accomplice testimony constitutes a departure from the former opinion of this Court in Ripley v. State (1950) 189 Tenn. 681, 227 S.W.2d 26, 19 A.L.R.2d 1347.
The issue presented in Ripley v. State, supra, was whether or not a co-defendant lost legal status as an accomplice when acquitted b3r the jury. It was there held:
“But his acquittal did not effect his legal status as an accomplice witness. The law makes no distinction between an accomplice as a witness and the same individual as a defendant. State v. Weston, supra, 109 Or. 19, 219 P. 180; State v. Case, 61 Or. 265, 122 P. 304.”
In the present case, the defendant McGowen’s legal status is not in question — he was admittedly an accomplice. In addition to what was said in our original opin*457ion, we must point out that the thrust of the opinion in Ripley v. State, supra, simply does not reach this case.
After a full consideration of the contentions made, the petition to rehear is denied.
. Buhuett, Chief Justice, and Dyer, Chattin and Humpheeys, Justices, concur.