# Davis v. State

> Tennessee Supreme Court · May 24, 1930 · 161 Tenn. 23

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9868603

## Case

- **Full name:** J.L. Davis v. State of Tennessee.
- **Court:** Tennessee Supreme Court
- **Decided:** May 24, 1930
- **Citations:** 161 Tenn. 23; 8 Smith & H. 23; 28 S.W.2d 993; 1930 Tenn. LEXIS 3
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Green
- **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/9868603

## Opinion text

ON Petition To Reheae.
In disposing of this case formerly, concluding our discussion of the proof, we said:
“A more particular discussion of the facts of the case is not required, since counsel for the State concede that plaintiff in error was possessed by an insane delusion respecting the former relations of his wife and Esquire Noe, and since counsel for the plaintiff in error in effect concede that the killing was without justification, léaving out of consideration the defense of irresistible impulse.”
A petition to rehear is filed in which counsel for plaintiff in error disclaimed the concession ascribed to them and support their disclaimer by references to the brief. The court is asked to recall the language of the opinion which attributes such a concession to counsel. This, we accordingly do.
We desire to be understood as having said! in this connection that a further discussion of the facts was omitted, since the State conceded that plaintiff in error was pos *40 sessed by an insane delusion respecting tbe former relations of bis wife and Esquire Noe, and since, upon tbe record before ns, we found no sucb preponderance of evidence against tbe verdict of the jury as would justify the court in interfering therewith, leaving out of consideration this insane delusion and irresistible impulse arising therefrom.
We are further ashed in the petition for a rehearing to specifically rule on several assignments of error which we did not regard of particular importance, and did not notice in the opinion. We pass on these matters as follows :
The seventh assignment of error is sustained.
The eighth assignment of error is sustained.
The ninth assignment of error is overruled. There was no request for additional instructions in this connection.
The twelfth assignment of error is overruled. We pointed out in the opinion that so far as the district attorney-general misstated the proof, this was an inadvertence and would not occur again.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9868603. Public record. Not legal advice.