Harris v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Harris v. State

46 So. 749, 155 Ala. 139, 1908 Ala. LEXIS 334

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedMay 14, 1908

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 46 So. 749 (Harris 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

Harris v. State, 46 So. 749, 155 Ala. 139, 1908 Ala. LEXIS 334 (Ala. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

McCLELLAN, J,

conviction of carrying a concealed weapon. Tbe evidence for the state tended to show that the defendant attended a supper, that while in the house he removed his coat, and that on leaving the house he replaced his coat, and after he had, with witnesses for the state, gone about 100 yards from the house, he drew from his hip pocket a pistol theretofore concealed, and unseen by theffi, and exhibited it to his associates, and then returned it to concealment in the pocket. The evidence for the defendant tended to show that the defendant wore no coat on the occasion in question, but did have on a baseball blouse or shirt, which did not reach below the waist line.

The election by the state was for an offense developed away from the place where the suppei\ took place. While, of course, the apparel worn by the defendant en route to the supper, thereat, and away from it, was the proper subject of inquiry, as evidence of the concealment of the weapon, yet whether the defendant’s witnesses saw him with a pistol at the supper, or not, could not, in behalf of the defendant, shed any light on the gist of the investigation, viz., did he have a concealed weapon on the occasion for which he was being tried? If his witnesses had been permitted to testify that they did not see him with a pistol at the supper, that fact would not have had any tendency to refute the asserted fact that [141]*141be drew a concealed weapon on tbe road. That tbe weapon was concealed at tbe supper would naturally forbid them seeing it. If, on tbe other band, they bad testified that they did see him with a pistol at tbe supper, that fact would have tended to support tbe theory of the prosecution. In any event, then, tbe refusal of the court to admit testimony as to whether tbe witnesses for tbe defendant saw him with a pistol at tbe supper was without prejudicial error to him.

There is no error in the record, and tbe judgment is affirmed. ■

Affirmed.

Tyson, C. J., and Dowdell and Anderson, JJ., concur.

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

McCLELLAN, J,

conviction of carrying a concealed weapon. Tbe evidence for the state tended to show that the defendant attended a supper, that while in the house he removed his coat, and that on leaving the house he replaced his coat, and after he had, with witnesses for the state, gone about 100 yards from the house, he drew from his hip pocket a pistol theretofore concealed, and unseen by theffi, and exhibited it to his associates, and then returned it to concealment in the pocket. The evidence for the defendant tended to show that the defendant wore no coat on the occasion in question, but did have on a baseball blouse or shirt, which did not reach below the waist line.

The election by the state was for an offense developed away from the place where the suppei\ took place. While, of course, the apparel worn by the defendant en route to the supper, thereat, and away from it, was the proper subject of inquiry, as evidence of the concealment of the weapon, yet whether the defendant’s witnesses saw him with a pistol at the supper, or not, could not, in behalf of the defendant, shed any light on the gist of the investigation, viz., did he have a concealed weapon on the occasion for which he was being tried? If his witnesses had been permitted to testify that they did not see him with a pistol at the supper, that fact would not have had any tendency to refute the asserted fact that [141]*141be drew a concealed weapon on tbe road. That tbe weapon was concealed at tbe supper would naturally forbid them seeing it. If, on tbe other band, they bad testified that they did see him with a pistol at tbe supper, that fact would have tended to support tbe theory of the prosecution. In any event, then, tbe refusal of the court to admit testimony as to whether tbe witnesses for tbe defendant saw him with a pistol at tbe supper was without prejudicial error to him.

There is no error in the record, and tbe judgment is affirmed. ■

Affirmed.

Tyson, C. J., and Dowdell and Anderson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 So. 749, 155 Ala. 139, 1908 Ala. LEXIS 334, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-state-ala-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack