Court Opinion

ID: 9680310
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:28:51.183769+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:27.639465
License: Public Domain

GALBREATH, Judge
(dissenting).
I must respectfully dissent. The witness Andrew Go-forth was the single most important witness against the defendant. If his testimony could be proved false, it would meet the test set out in Rosenthal v. State, 200 Tenn. 178, 292 S.W.2d 1, allowing the impeachment of a witness because “the testimony of the witness who is sought to be impeached was so important to the issue, and the evidence impeaching the witness so strong and convincing, that a different result must necessarily follow.”
If we assume that the affidavit was attached to the amended motion for a new trial (and there is no real dispute on the part of the State that it was) then whether or not it would necessitate the granting of a new trial cannot be determined here because of the failure of state action on the part of one of the officials, i. e., the appointed attorney, or the cleric whose duty it was to see that this document was preserved for review on appeal. For the reasons discussed in Nelms v. State, 219 Tenn. *168727, 413 S.W.2d 378, and Elliott v. State, Tenn., 435 S.W.2d 812, dealing with failure of state action on indigent appeals, I would reverse this case and remand for a new trial.