Court Opinion

ID: 9858344
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 16:20:44.666825+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:53:57.389909
License: Public Domain

Opinion on Petition to Rehear
Mb. Justice Cbeson.
William R. Caruthers has filed a petition to rehear in this case. The petition makes the argument that the introduction of the testimony, over his objection, of a Mrs. Head, as to the petitioner’s commission of a prior crime, of similar nature, violated his rights under Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution of Tennessee, and under Amendments 5, 6, and 14 to the Constitution of the United States. Assuming, without deciding, that these contentions now made for the first time, are properly to be considered, we find these constitutional provisions *29have repeatedly been construed by both Federal and State courts to apply to tbe crime for wbicb tbe defendant is on trial. What we have bere is only tbe admissibility of evidence of prior crimes wbicb may bave bearing on tbe question of identity of tbe defendant as tbe party perpetrating the offense wbicb is on trial, but for wbicb tbe defendant may not at tbe present trial be convicted and sentenced. Tbe authorities cited in tbe original opinion fairly recognize the admissibility and competency of such evidence.
This Court concludes that tbe petition to rehear is without merit, and therefore is denied.
Burkett, Chief Justice, and White, Dyer and ChattiN, Justices, concur.