Court Opinion

ID: 9768076
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:41:25.575577+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:36.456244
License: Public Domain

GALBREATH, Judge
(concurring).
If any credible defense at all had been advanced on behalf of the appellant, the clearly erroneous admission of proof of unrelated criminal activity on the burglary trial would, in my opinion, force reversal. An escape or failure to appear for trial is a circumstance inconsistent with innocence and relevant to the principal issue of guilt. Mitchell v. State, Tenn.Cr.App., 458 S.W.2d 630. Unrelated crime that might be committed during such period of absence has no relevancy and is clearly prejudicial in most cases. But since under the uncon-troverted facts of this case the defendant broke into the business establishment as alleged and he had previously been convicted of more than the required number of the enumerated felonies to establish habitual criminality, I agree with Judge Russell that upon the collapse of the affirmative defense offered — insanity at the time of the commission of the crime — the admission of the incompetent evidence could not have affected the verdict of guilt or the punishment fixed by law.