Court Opinion

ID: 9642196
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:51:47.831918+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:44.285178
License: Public Domain

Me. Justice Chattin
(concurring).
*21While I agree with the conclusion reached by the majority opinion, I do so npon other reasons. The record reveals that when the defense called Vernon Ezell to the stand the following occurred:
“General' Templeton: Your Honor, he’s been in the court room.
“The Court: That’s right. He’s been in the court room.
“Mr. MePheeters: But he’s—
“The Court: (Interposing) I can’t help it, he’s been in the court room and you asked for the rule and I have to enforce it. ’ ’
Thus, it appears the rule was invoked by Counsel for defendants. At the time the nolle prosequi was taken, Counsel for defendants were the persons who knew whether Vernon would be called to testify. Certainly the trial judge did not. If Counsel for defendants intended to call him as a witness, it was their duty to place him under the rule.
However, this Court has held the violation of the rule of separation of witnesses does not in itself make a witness incompetent or compel his exclusion. Nance v. State, 210 Tenn. 328, 358 S.W.2d 327 (1962).
It is also settled in this State that it is discretionary with the trial judge whether he will permit a witness under the rule to testify, although the witness has heard the evidence. Pennington v. State, 136 Tenn. 533, 190 S.W. 546 (1916).
I think the error committed in the instant case was the refusal of the trial judge to hear Counsel and disallow *22the witness to testify solely on the ground he had violated the rule.
Under the state of the record, we cannot ascertain whether the testimony of the witness was material. Nor does it appear why Counsel for the defendants permitted the witness to remain in the court room.