Court Opinion

ID: 9868550
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 18:40:45.961671+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:51.517461
License: Public Domain

On' Petition to Rehear.
The plaintiff in error has filed his petition to rehear, with supporting brief, complaining of error committed by the Court in modifying the judgment of the trial court, it being earnestly insisted that the case of Corlew v. State, 181 Tenn. 220, 180 S. W. (2d) 900, was erroneously applied.
The State has filed an answer in which it is said, ‘ ‘ The rule announced in Corlew v. State is properly applied to the state of facts found to have existed by this Court. The use of a deadly weapon under the state of facts war*613rants the decision of this Court and is sustained by Mullins v. State, 156 Tenn. 105, 299 S. W. 1052. ’’
The defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree in the Criminal Court of Wayne County and sentenced to the penitentiary for twenty-one years and one day. Upon a full consideration of all the evidence, we expressed our dissatisfaction with the verdict and sentence imposed, but found that he was clearly, guilty of murder in the second degree. The judgment was modified in accordance with this finding and his punishment fixed 'by the Court at ten years in the state penitentiary, which is the minimum punishment for second-degree murder.
The petitioner does not insist that we overrule or even modify Corlew v. State, supra, but says, “In criminal cases the jury must find the defendant guilty of every element of any offense beyond a reasonable doubt,” and for this reason it was error not to remand the case for a new trial.
The principle upon which the Court rested its opinion in the Corlew Case was that where the indictment embraced several offenses of different grades and the accused was convicted of the greater, the jury by its verdict has also convicted him of all lessor offenses.
Upon appeal we not only look to the record to determine if the evidence preponderates in favor of his innocence of the greater crime, but also if it preponderates against the verdict as to the lesser offenses. Under the judgment of conviction he is presumed to be guilty of each and every crime embraced in the indictment.
Now if the evidence preponderates in favor of his innocence of murder in the first degree, as in the instant case, because lacking in the elements of deliberation and premeditation, it becomes our duty to correct this manifest error, which was done by modifying the judgment *614and affirming Ms conviction of murder in the second degree.
In opposition to petitioner’s contention that we should reverse and remand for a new trial, the State contends that the conviction of murder in the second degree should be sustained. It is argued that the petitioner has had a fair trial under the Constitution, and the law does not require us to remand for a new trial upon the lesser crimes. We think this position of the State is sound. If the evidence does not preponderate in favor of the petitioner’s innocence of murder in the second degree, the State is entitled to have his conviction of that offence affirmed.
We do no violence to'any legal right of petitioner because he has had a fair trial “by his peers” and was found guilty. There is no insistence that he did not have such a trial as to his guilt or innocence of all offenses.
The contention made that upon a remand a jury perchance might acquit him of all offenses cannot be given serious consideration. For us to remand this case upon any such hypothesis would be to give recognition to one’s right to gamble with the cause of justice to the prejudice of the peace and good order of society. The petitioner admits he is guilty of involuntary manslaughter.
While petitioner’s counsel has presented the strongest argument that could be made against the power of appellate courts to modify and reduce punishment in criminal cases, we feel that complete justice has been done the petitioner in applying the rule announced in the Gorlew Case.
The petition denied.