# McKinnie v. State

> Tennessee Supreme Court · January 8, 1964 · 214 Tenn. 195

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9862856

## Case

- **Full name:** Lester G. McKinnie Et Al. v. State of Tennessee
- **Court:** Tennessee Supreme Court
- **Decided:** January 8, 1964
- **Citations:** 214 Tenn. 195; 18 McCanless 195; 379 S.W.2d 214; 1964 Tenn. LEXIS 464
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** BuRnett
- **Cited by:** 8 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/9862856

## Opinion text

*211 On Petition to Rehear
The plaintiffs in error through able counsel have filed herein a courteous and dignified petition to rehear. After very carefully considering this petition and the brief in support thereof, we must conclude that it is nothing more than a reargument of the questions presented at the time this case was originally heard.
One additional authority is cited, State of Delaware v. Brown, 195 A.2d 397 . This Delawar e case is no wise in point herein. The same reasons that we assigned as to why Peterson v. City of Greenville and Lombard v. State of Louisiana were not in point are applicable to the Brown case. In the Brown case, Brown, a Negro, entered the premises of a restaurant and requested service of food. The proprietor denied him service solely because of his race, and, upon his refusal to leave, obtained a warrant for his arrest for violation of the criminal trespass statute of Delaware. That is not the question here.
Basically and essentially the whole argument made originally, and now made, is based upon the philosophy and legal reasoning which summed up may be stated thus; in so long as our motives are right we can pursue any means (even though illegal and unlawful) we may choose to accomplish those motives. The authorities cited by the plaintiffs in error all go to the proposition that the motives of these plaintiffs in error were lawful. There is no authority nor so far as we know can any be found, whereby one may resort to unlawful and illegal means to accomplish lawful motives.
After thoroughly considering this petition to rehear and the matter again, we are convinced that the means *212 employed by these plaintiffs in error to accomplish their motives were illegal and unlawful, and it is for this alone that they are convicted. Under the factual situation of this case by their using illegal and unlawful means they have thus violated fundamental law and are guilty. The verdict against them for reasons set forth in our original opinion must be sustained. The petition to rehear is accordingly overruled.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9862856. Public record. Not legal advice.