explaining that a person on trial for a certain felony “is also on trial for all its lesser included offenses, as the facts may be”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that a person on trial for a certain felony “is also on trial for all its lesser included offenses, as the facts may be”
- recognizing that this Court may take judicial notice of the statement of facts in a prior opinion in the same case
- reaffirming validity of Youngstown Sheet & Tube
- in capital case, failure to charge lesser- included offenses deprived defendant of a “fair trial”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Limited — as noted by a later court
However, a reading of Patterson v. State, 218 Tenn. 80, 400 S.W.2d 743, and Bolin v. State, 219 Tenn. 4, 405 S.W. 2d 768, reveals that Strader, supra, has been limited to its facts.
medium confidence
The opinion
White, Justice
(concurring).
I concur in the conclusion expressed as to the applicable law of this case and agree that this case should be reversed and remanded.
Moreover, I am not satisfied with the testimony upon which this defendant was convicted in this second trial, since there is marked discrepancy between the testimony *685 of the prosecutrix and her mother on the first and second trials, bearing on the issue of the guilty intent of the felony charged. This defendant has already been confined for approximately two years and has suffered two trials which, in my opinion, is sufficient punishment upon the showing made by the evidence in this case.
Therefore, in addition to the rulings in the majority opinion, I would reverse this case on the facts and would recommend that a nolle prosequi be entered.
Prewitt, Chief Justice, and Bubített, Pelts, and Dyer, Justices, concur.