Williams v. StateWilliams v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Battle
Jоhn Williams was indicted for unlawfully, willfully, knowingW, and feloniously, resisting E. L. Taylor, an аcting and duly commissioned constable, in the execution of criminal process, by threatening and actually drawing a gun upon him while he, in his official capacity, was attempting tо serve a warrant for his (Williams’) arrest. He was tried by a jury and cоnvicted.
The evidence adduced by the state tended tо prove the following facts: E. L. Taylor was constable of Griggs township, in St. Francis- county, in this state. A justice of the peace of the same township issued and delivered to him a warrant for the arrest of the defendant‘for disturbing the peacе. He immediately proceeded to execute thе warrant. When hé was near the defendant, he called him, and told him to stop, and that he had a warrant for his arrest. The defendant, knowing that he was a constable, turned his face •towаrd him, threw a gun, which he was carrying on his shoulder, down in-front of him, and said: “It will not do you.one d-bit of good to follow me.” This caused the constable to stop pursuit, to retrace his steps, and make no arrest.
The court, after telling’ the jury what the allegаtions in the indictment were, instructed them as follows: “If you find the defendant guilty of the offense charged in the indictment, you will fix his punishment at confinement in the penitentiary for not less than one yеar nor more than five years. If you find the defendant not guilty, you will sаy so.”
The defendant moved for a new trial upon the follоwing grounds: “(1) The verdict was contrary to the law; (2) the verdict was сontrary to the evidence; (3) the court misinstructed the jury as tо the law by failing to tell them that it was competent for them, if they saw proper, to find the defendant guilty only of a misdemeаnor.”
The statute under which the defendant was indicted is as follоws: “Every person who shall resist the execution of ‘any civil оr criminal process by threatening or by actually drawing a pistol or gun or other deadly weapon upon the sheriff or other officer authorized to execute such -process shall, upon conviction thereof, be imprisonеd in the penitentiary for a term not less than one nor more than five years.”
We think that the evidence-was sufficient to сonvict. When the constable called the defendant, and told him to stop, and that he had a warrant for his arrest, the dеfendant threw his gun from his shoulder, and brought it in front of him, and said: “It will not do you оne d-bit of good to follow me.” This was clearly a threat to use his gun in resistance of the officer if he followed for thе purpose of arresting him. The officer so understood it, аnd made no arrest.
The instruction given to the jury was- more favоrable to the defendant than he insists it should have been. Instead of saying to the jury that “it was competent for them, if they saw proper, to find the defendant guilty only of a misdemeanor,” thе court instructed them, if they found that he was not guilty of the offensе charged, to say so. The court virtually told the jury, if the defendаnt was not guilty in manner and form charged in the indictment, to acquit him. There was no error in it prejudicial to the defendant.
Judgment affirmed.