Hutspeth v. State

254 S.W.2d 130, 158 Tex. Crim. 188, 1953 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1546
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedJanuary 21, 1953
Docket26196
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 254 S.W.2d 130 (Hutspeth 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
Hutspeth v. State, 254 S.W.2d 130, 158 Tex. Crim. 188, 1953 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1546 (Tex. 1953).

Opinion

WOODLEY, Judge.

Upon a trial before the court, a jury having been waived, appellant was convicted of carrying a pistol, and his punishment was assessed at a fine of $100.00.

The evidence shows without question that a loaded pistol was found in the glove compartment of appellant’s car.

Appellant testified that he lived in Austin and was carrying his pistol home to leave with his wife when he stopped to get groceries at a San Antonio store where he was arrested on a theft charge.

The court apparently did not accept appellant’s explanation *189 of his reason for having the pistol on the occasion, and rejected his defense that he was a bona fide traveler and was carrying the pistol lawfully.

Proof that appellant carried a pistol in the glove compartment of his car warranted conviction of carrying on or about his person a pistol. See Spears v. State, 112 Tex. Cr. R. 506, 17 S.W. 2d 809.

The burden was on appellant to show exemption from prosecution under Art. 484 P.C. See Blackwell v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 476, 31 S.W. 380, and other cases annotated under Article 484, Note 16, Vernon’s Ann. P.C.

The trial judge was not bound by appellant’s explanation of his purpose in having the pistol in his possession but, sitting without a jury as the trier of the facts, had the right to accept or refuse to accept appellant’s testimony as true. See French v. State, 126 Tex. Cr. R. 246, 70 S.W. 2d 1002.

There are no bills of exception in the record, and the evidence sustains the conviction.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

Bouldin v. State
440 S.W.2d 859 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1969)
Courtney v. State
424 S.W.2d 440 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1968)
Castaneda v. State
402 S.W.2d 766 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1966)
Porter v. State
388 S.W.2d 422 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1965)
Booth v. State
344 S.W.2d 885 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1961)
Summerville v. State
301 S.W.2d 913 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1957)
Linsey v. State
279 S.W.2d 862 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1955)
Tunnell v. State
263 S.W.2d 776 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1954)
Allen v. State
259 S.W.2d 225 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1953)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
254 S.W.2d 130, 158 Tex. Crim. 188, 1953 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1546, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hutspeth-v-state-texcrimapp-1953.