# Evans v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee · August 26, 1977 · 557 S.W.2d 927

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9675439

## Case

- **Full name:** Emmit EVANS and Marion Smith, Appellants, v. STATE of Tennessee, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
- **Decided:** August 26, 1977
- **Citations:** 557 S.W.2d 927; 1977 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 318
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Galbreath
- **Judges:** O'Brien, Galbreath, Russell
- **Cited by:** 24 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/9675439

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that a new trial will not be granted upon the ground of newly discovered evidence where the -16- evidence has no other effect “than to discredit the testimony of a witness at the original trial, contradict a witness’s statements, or impeach a witness, unless the testim…
- stating that a new trial will not be granted upon the ground of newly discovered evidence where the evidence has no other effect “than to discredit the testimony of a witness at the original trial, contradict a witness’s statements, or impeach a witness, unless the testimony o…
- stating “supposing all the evidence new and old to be before another jury, whether they ought to return a verdict more favorable . . . than the one returned on the original trial”

## Opinion text

GALBREATH, Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the result reached in Judge O'Brien’s exhaustive opinion, although I agree with appellant, Emmit Evans, that he was denied the right to confront his co-defendant Marion Smith, concerning statements by Smith implicating Evans, as recounted by the witness Valerio. That these statements were made as part of an alleged conversation between the two defendants should not, it seems to me, take them out of the Bruton rule. Whatever Evans said, of course, would be admissible. What Smith said should not, as I see it.
However, I would hold the error harmless in view of the other independent and competent evidence of Evans’ participation in the murder. I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the complained of testimony did not effect the verdict. Harrington v. State, 215 Tenn. 338 , 385 S.W.2d 758 (1964); Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 , 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9675439. Public record. Not legal advice.