Court Opinion

ID: 9769224
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 14:40:23.395162+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:58.383323
License: Public Domain

On Petition to Reheak.
A petition to rehear has been filed in this cause wherein several complaints as to the action of the Court are charged. However, for the most part the points relied upon in the petition are the same as those presented upon the original hearing.
In this cause the defendant, Katie Jean Robertson, had been tried separately from the other defendants and therefore the pleadings, proof, ets., were compiled in a separate and distinct record. Prior to the trial we granted an order of consolidation for these two cases and allowed the defendant, Katie Jean Robertson, to adopt the brief of the other defendants. It was noted by the Court, however, that her bill of exceptions was not timely filed, and under our rulings such bill of exceptions could not be considered by the Court. Thus, there was no record of the proof adduced upon her trial before the Court and all matters turning upon that proof could not be considered in the absence of that proof.
It is urged upon the Court in the petition to rehear that she, Katie Jean Robertson, be granted a rehearing for the reasons set out in behalf of the defendants who were tried separately from her. We cannot consider upon a petition to rehear what we could not consider upon the original hearing. It is well settled that when two or more cases are joined together for hearing each must turn upon the pleadings, proof and *115proceedings in their respective snits. Bouldin v. Taylor, 152 Tenn. 97, 275 S.W. 340.
The defendants also complain of the Court’s construction of Section 39-1204 T.C.A. We feel that the conclusion reached by the Court and the reasons therefor are amply set forth in the original opinion.
Likewise, as was pointed out in the opinion the gravamen of the offense is the wilfulness of the act and we are satisfied that the defendants’ acts herein were wil-fully done. This is especially true in the light of the order by their leader to “scatter out” and their actions subsequent to this command.
The defendants once again complain that their constitutional rights have been violated because the place where the meeting was conducted was a publicly owned facility and they could not be excluded, but we do not reach this question because it is not material to the lawsuit. The mere fact that they had a constitutional right to be present, if such be a fact, would not grant to them any immunity from the violation of a criminal statute.
The petition to rehear is denied.
BurNETt, Felts, White, and Dyer, Justices, concur.