Court Opinion

ID: 9666229
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:08:15.322056+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:25.076077
License: Public Domain

On Petition to Rehear
The defendant, through an attorney who was not counsel of record at the time we filed our original opinion, has filed a petition -to rehear. In this petition it is asserted that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction in that the testimony of defendant’s accomplice, Blankenship, is not adequately corroborated. No authorities to support this contention are cited in the petition to rehear.
In the recent case of State v. Fowler, 213 Tenn. 239, 373 S.W.2d 460, the Court pointed out that under the common law the testimony of an accomplice, if it statisfies the jury beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of. the defendant, may be sufficient to warrant a conviction *101although it is uncorroborated. In Tennessee, however, while we have no statute requiring corroboration, this Court has repeatedly held that a defendant may not be convicted upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. In Fowler, and in numerous other cases, this Court has held that:
“ * # # slight circumstances may be sufficient to furnish the necessary corroboration of an accomplice.” 213 Tenn. at 247, 373 S.W.2d at 463.
The rules with reference to the sufficiency of corroborating evidence were fully stated by the Court,- speaking through the present Chief Justice, in Stanley v. State, 189 Tenn. 110, 116, 117, 222 S.W.2d 384, 386, from which we quote, as follows:
“* * * The sufficiency of corroborating evidence where the testimony of an accomplice is in the main depended upon, depends upon the particular facts of each case. The weight of this testimony, that is, of the accomplice, corroborating the accomplice are ordinarily questions for the jury to determine. ‘That is to say, when the trial judge finds that there is some corroborative evidence, it is his duty to submit it to the jury for them to say, first, whether it is worthy of belief, and secondly, whether, if true, tended to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime charged. It is not necessary to show by independent proof a link between the accomplice’s testimony and corroborative proof; when the proof claimed to be corroborative tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime in such a way as may reasonably satisfy a jury that the accomplice is telling the truth, it is sufficient. For this purpose, if the accomplice is corroborated as to some material fact or facts, the jury may from that *102infer that he speaks the truth as- to all.’ Wharton’s Criminal Evidence, Yol. 2, Section 754, page 1272.
“It is not necessary that the corroboration extend to every part of the accomplice’s evidence. The same authority last above quoted from says.
“ ‘The corroboration need not be conclusive, but it is sufficient if this evidence, of itself, tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense, although the evidence is slight, and entitled, when standing by itself, to but little consideration. Moreover, if the verdict is founded on slight evidence of corroboration eonecting the defendant with the crime, it cannot be said, as a matter of law, that the verdict is contrary to the evidence.’ Section 753, page 1271, supra.”
Much of the testimony of the accomplices relative to the part played by the defendant in arranging to store the stolen goods in an abandoned house on the farm where -defendant kept his horses is corroborated by the testimony of the tenant on that farm. Also, the defendant in his testimony admitted he was with Blankenship on the evening before the goods were moved to the farm in the early morning hours of the next day. The defendant testified he was awakened at 4:45 A.M., and showed the others the way to this farm. At the time defendant did this he knew police officers had been to Blankenship’s apartment with a search warrant looking for stolen property. In this connection, the defendant gave the following testimony :
“Q. On this first occasion when you saw him, (Blankenship) you learned that some police officers had broken into his apartment, is that correct?
“A. Yes, sir, later that night, that is correct, yes, sir.
*103“Q. Broke into Ms apartment with a search warrant?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Calling for stolen property?
“A. Yes, sir.”
As stated in State v. Fowler, snpra:
“It is not the province of an appellate court to make an argument upon the facts in a case of this character or go into detail on the question of credibility of witnesses or slight discrepancies in their testimony.”
The record fully supports the statement in our original opiMon that the testimony of the accomplices is amply corroborated. On the proof in this record the jury was completely justified in finding that on the early morning of June 9, 1963 the defendant was a party to the receiving and concealing of stolen goods, knowing the goods to have been stolen and with the intent to deprive the true owner thereof.
After again reviewing the record in this case, we find other contentions made in the petition to rehear to be equally without merit. Therefore, the petition to rehear is deMed.