Court Opinion

ID: 9683364
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:27:28.001788+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:47.415888
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON PETITION TO REHEAR
TATUM, Judge.
The appellant has filed a petition to rehear. It is a reargument of matters already presented to us and points out no material proposition of law or fact overlooked by us.
The appellant insists, among other things, that we should sustain the action of the Trial Judge dismissing the indictment because of an allegation that the foreman of the grand jury asked a witness whether or not the appellant had a criminal record. The Court did not delve into this allegation and this was not a basis for the dismissal of the indictment. However, the legality of evidence heard by a grand jury is not subject to judicial review. An indictment returned by a grand jury, if valid on its face, is enough to call for trial of the charge on the merits. Parton v. State, 2 Tenn.Cr.App. 626, 455 S.W.2d 645 (1970). Generally, also see Rippy v. State, 550 S.W.2d 636 (Tenn.1977); Gammon v. State, 506 S.W.2d 188 (Tenn.Cr.App.1973); Casey v. State, 491 S.W.2d 90 (Tenn.Cr.App.1972).
The petition to rehear is denied. Keith v. State, 218 Tenn. 395, 403 S.W.2d 758 (1966); Williams v. State, 542 S.W.2d 827 (Tenn.Cr.App.1976).
BYERS, J., and FRANK F. DROWOTA, III, Special Judge, concur.