# Jones v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee · February 12, 1970 · 2 Tenn. Crim. App. 160

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9680310

## Case

- **Full name:** JAMES FREDERICK JONES, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE OF TENNESSEE, Defendant in Error
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
- **Decided:** February 12, 1970
- **Citations:** 2 Tenn. Crim. App. 160; 452 S.W.2d 365; 1970 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 417
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Galbreath
- **Judges:** Oliver, Galbreath, Walker
- **Cited by:** 28 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/9680310

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that a defendant and his counsel must show that they “were not negligent in the search for evidence in preparation for the trial of the case” and that they had “no pre-trial knowledge of the alleged newly discovered evidence”

## Opinion text

GALBREATH, Judge
(dissenting).
I must respectfully dissent. The witness Andrew Go-forth was the single most important witness against the defendant. If his testimony could be proved false, it would meet the test set out in Rosenthal v. State, 200 Tenn. 178 , 292 S.W.2d 1 , allowing the impeachment of a witness because “the testimony of the witness who is sought to be impeached was so important to the issue, and the evidence impeaching the witness so strong and convincing, that a different result must necessarily follow.”
If we assume that the affidavit was attached to the amended motion for a new trial (and there is no real dispute on the part of the State that it was) then whether or not it would necessitate the granting of a new trial cannot be determined here because of the failure of state action on the part of one of the officials, i. e., the appointed attorney, or the cleric whose duty it was to see that this document was preserved for review on appeal. For the reasons discussed in Nelms v. State, 219 Tenn. *168 727 , 413 S.W.2d 378 , and Elliott v. State, Tenn., 435 S.W.2d 812 , dealing with failure of state action on indigent appeals, I would reverse this case and remand for a new trial.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9680310. Public record. Not legal advice.