Steele v. StateSteele v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Rrendergast
Appellant was convicted for. «carrying a pistol. Appellant asked the сourt to charge that if the jury ¡believed from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant •did hаve a pistol, as charged, but “you further bеlieve that the pistol “was not in shooting сondition, or, if you have a reasonаble doubt” of it find him not guilty. He also complаins of this paragraph of the court’s charge: “If the defendant carried a pistol, it would not make any difference whether the pistol was an old one or а new one, or was loaded or unloaded. The law merely says that it is unlawful to cаrry ¡a pistol and makes no difference whether it was a good pistol or an infеrior one, but it must be a pistol.” The court qualified appellant’s hill complaining оf this charge by stating: “That the witness, Andrew Arriola, testified in speaking of the gun: ‘I felt something in his pоcket •■and pulled it out and it was a pistоl, was a common looking blue pistol. It all seemed to be there and as far аs I know it was a whole pistol. It had hammer аnd all.’ Tom Collins testified: ‘Roy Steele and Cal Eddings’ boy caught up with us,—directly Andrew came uр to the “wagon and said: “Look here what I got,” and showed us a pistol. It was loadеd and the cartridges looked like they had been snapped on. It-was loaded next morning when I looked at it. It was a pistol and was an old looking pistol and had а hammer and trigger.’ The defendant “testified: ‘I brought it to town with me and hid it in my slicker, and *353 left it in my slicker until I started out and then took it out and put it in my pocket.’ The attempts to shoot the рistol were on the next morning after the pistol had been thrown in the wagon the night befоre.”
We tbi-nk the court properly refusеd to give appellant’s said speсial charge and there was no errоr in giving the paragraph of his charge quоted and excepted to above. We do not regard Blackburn v. State, 58 Crim. Reр., 48, 124 S. W. Rep., 666, cited and relied on by appellаnt, as in point. The statute is “if any person shall carry on or about his person any pistol, he shall be punished by fine,” etc. We think there is no error shown in the judgment of the court below and it will be affirmed.
Affirmed.