Evins v. State

46 Ala. 88
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedJune 15, 1871
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 46 Ala. 88 (Evins v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Evins v. State, 46 Ala. 88 (Ala. 1871).

Opinion

PECK, C. J.

The defendant below was indicted under section 3555 of the Revised Code, for carrying a pistol concealed about his person, against the peace and dignity of the State. All the evidence, and the charge of the court given to the jury, and the charges asked by the defendant and refused by the court, are set out in the bill of exceptions..

The evidence shows, that the pistol carried by the defendant as aforesaid was harmless as a weapon; that it could not be fired off, as a pistol is usually fired off; that it had no mainspring, or other necessary machinery of a lockthat the hammer or cock was disconnected and loose, and that the nipple or tube was so flattened as not to be touched by the hammer when down, and it was doubtful whether it could be fired off by a cap on the tube, &c.

The court, on the evidence, charged the jury in substance, that the said pistol was a pistol within the meaning of the statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.

In this we think the court erred. We hold, that a pistol, [89]*89to be within the purview and meaning of the statute and the mischief and evil intended to be prevented, must have such a degree of perfectness, as that it may reasonably be carried and used as a weapon. ' It is not enough that it has a stock, and a barrel that may be loaded and fired off by a match or in some other such way.

This was clearly not the character and condition of this pistol. It was certainly worthless as a weapon, and no sensible person would have relied upon it as a weapon to attack an adversary, or to defend himself.

As this disposes of the case, we do not think it necessary to consider whether the charges asked by the defendant should or should not have been given. Let the judgment be reversed, and' the cause be remanded for another trial.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Jackson
266 Cal. App. 2d 341 (California Court of Appeal, 1968)
Jarvis v. Commonwealth
206 S.W.2d 831 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1947)
Martin v. State
1939 OK CR 122 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1939)
People v. Padilla
45 P.R. 264 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1933)
Pueblo v. Padilla
45 P.R. Dec. 273 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1933)
People v. Simons
124 Misc. 28 (New York Court of Special Session, 1924)
Mitchell v. State
55 So. 354 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1911)
Brown v. State
1909 OK CR 125 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1909)
Mathews v. Caldwell
63 S.E. 250 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1908)
Williams v. State
61 Ga. 417 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1878)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
46 Ala. 88, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/evins-v-state-ala-1871.