Gillam v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Gillam v. State

254 S.W. 990, 95 Tex. Crim. 464, 1923 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 645

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedOctober 17, 1923

DocketNo. 7715.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 254 S.W. 990 (Gillam v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gillam v. State, 254 S.W. 990, 95 Tex. Crim. 464, 1923 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 645 (Tex. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

— The appeal is from a judgment assessing against the appellant a fine of one hundred dollars for unlawfully carrying a pistol.

The evidence shows that while the appellant was playing at a game a pistol dropped from his clothing. It was picked up by the *465 State’s witness. Appellant testified that the pistol was not in a condition to be used as a firearm in that the cylinder would not revolve; that he had taken it to have it repaired but was unable to get it repaired. He was corroborated in some degree by the testimony of his father that there were two pistols at his home, both of which were broken. The pistol in question came into the possession of the State’s witness, but neither by him nor by anyone else was the testimony of the appellant controverted. The pistol being in the condition described, appellant, under the facts, was not shown to be guilty of any offense. See Cook v. State, 11 Texas Crim. App., 19; Dillingham v. State, 32 S. W. Rep., 771; White v. State, 66 S. W. Rep., 773; Branch Ann. Texas P. C., Secs. 972-973.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed, and remanded.

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

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

— The appeal is from a judgment assessing against the appellant a fine of one hundred dollars for unlawfully carrying a pistol.

The evidence shows that while the appellant was playing at a game a pistol dropped from his clothing. It was picked up by the *465 State’s witness. Appellant testified that the pistol was not in a condition to be used as a firearm in that the cylinder would not revolve; that he had taken it to have it repaired but was unable to get it repaired. He was corroborated in some degree by the testimony of his father that there were two pistols at his home, both of which were broken. The pistol in question came into the possession of the State’s witness, but neither by him nor by anyone else was the testimony of the appellant controverted. The pistol being in the condition described, appellant, under the facts, was not shown to be guilty of any offense. See Cook v. State, 11 Texas Crim. App., 19; Dillingham v. State, 32 S. W. Rep., 771; White v. State, 66 S. W. Rep., 773; Branch Ann. Texas P. C., Secs. 972-973.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed, and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 S.W. 990, 95 Tex. Crim. 464, 1923 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 645, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gillam-v-state-texcrimapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack