# State v. Locke

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee · February 3, 1989 · 771 S.W.2d 132

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9641848

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Tennessee, Appellee, v. Marshall Howard LOCKE, Jr., Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
- **Decided:** February 3, 1989
- **Citations:** 771 S.W.2d 132; 1989 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 145
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Jones, Scott, Reid
- **Cited by:** 25 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9641848

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that a scratch two and one-half inches long which did not bleed constituted bodily injury under prior statute

## Opinion text

ORDER ON MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT AND PETITION TO REHEAR
The appellant, Marshall Howard Locke, Jr., has filed a motion to supplement the record in this cause pursuant to Rule 24(e), Tenn.R.App.P., and a petition to rehear pursuant to Rule 39, Tenn.R.App.P. The appellant seeks to supplement the record with respect to a hearing on the appellant’s motion to suppress identification testimony. In his petition to rehear the appellant contends that this Court’s opinion (a) overlooks *140 or misapprehends a material fact or proposition of law and (b) relies upon matters of fact or law upon which the parties have not been heard and are open to reasonable dispute.
The appellant candidly states that the rehearing is sought as to one issue, namely, the propriety of the trial court’s decision denying his motion to suppress evidence. Of course, our consideration of this issue is contingent upon our granting his motion to supplement the record. As noted in our opinion, the record was insufficient for us to reach the merits of this issue.
The defendant’s belated effort to supplement the record in this cause comes too late. State v. Roberts, 755 S.W.2d 833, 837-838 (Tenn.Crim.App.1988). Furthermore, the supplementation of the record does not constitute a meritorious ground for a rehearing pursuant to Rule 39(a), Tenn.R.App.P. As the late Mr. Justice Henry said in Dearborne v. State, 575 S.W.2d 259, 264 (Tenn.1978): “We decide cases and controversies on the basis of the record as presented to us for our consideration, and not as they might, or should, have been presented.”
The appellant’s motion to supplement the record and petition to rehear are both respectfully denied.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9641848. Public record. Not legal advice.