Steele v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Steele v. State

166 S.W. 511, 73 Tex. Crim. 352, 1914 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 173

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 8, 1914

DocketNo. 3084.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 166 S.W. 511 (Steele 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

Steele v. State, 166 S.W. 511, 73 Tex. Crim. 352, 1914 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 173 (Tex. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

RRENDERGAST, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted for. «carrying a pistol. Appellant asked the court to charge that if the jury ¡believed from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant •did have a pistol, as charged, but "you further believe that the pistol "was not in shooting condition, or, if you have a reasonable doubt” of it find him not guilty. He also complains of this paragraph of the court’s charge: “If the defendant carried a pistol, it would not make any difference whether the pistol was an old one or a new one, or was loaded or unloaded. The law merely says that it is unlawful to carry ¡a pistol and makes no difference whether it was a good pistol or an inferior one, but it must be a pistol.” The court qualified appellant’s hill complaining of this charge by stating: “That the witness, Andrew Arriola, testified in speaking of the gun: ‘I felt something in his pocket •■and pulled it out and it was a pistol, was a common looking blue pistol. It all seemed to be there and as far as I know it was a whole pistol. It had hammer and all.’ Tom Collins testified: ‘Roy Steele and Cal Eddings’ boy caught up with us,—directly Andrew came up to the "wagon and said: “Look here what I got,” and showed us a pistol. It was loaded and the cartridges looked like they had been snapped on. It-was loaded next morning when I looked at it. It was a pistol and was an old looking pistol and had a hammer and trigger.’ The defendant "testified: ‘I brought it to town with me and hid it in my slicker, and *353 left it in my slicker until I started out and then took it out and put it in my pocket.’ The attempts to shoot the pistol were on the next morning after the pistol had been thrown in the wagon the night before.”

[Rehearing denied May 6, 1914.—Reporter.]

We tbi-nk the court properly refused to give appellant’s said special charge and there was no error in giving the paragraph of his charge quoted and excepted to above. We do not regard Blackburn v. State, 58 Crim. Rep., 48, 124 S. W. Rep., 666, cited and relied on by appellant, as in point. The statute is “if any person shall carry on or about his person any pistol, he shall be punished by fine,” etc. We think there is no error shown in the judgment of the court below and it will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

RRENDERGAST, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted for. «carrying a pistol. Appellant asked the court to charge that if the jury ¡believed from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant •did have a pistol, as charged, but "you further believe that the pistol "was not in shooting condition, or, if you have a reasonable doubt” of it find him not guilty. He also complains of this paragraph of the court’s charge: “If the defendant carried a pistol, it would not make any difference whether the pistol was an old one or a new one, or was loaded or unloaded. The law merely says that it is unlawful to carry ¡a pistol and makes no difference whether it was a good pistol or an inferior one, but it must be a pistol.” The court qualified appellant’s hill complaining of this charge by stating: “That the witness, Andrew Arriola, testified in speaking of the gun: ‘I felt something in his pocket •■and pulled it out and it was a pistol, was a common looking blue pistol. It all seemed to be there and as far as I know it was a whole pistol. It had hammer and all.’ Tom Collins testified: ‘Roy Steele and Cal Eddings’ boy caught up with us,—directly Andrew came up to the "wagon and said: “Look here what I got,” and showed us a pistol. It was loaded and the cartridges looked like they had been snapped on. It-was loaded next morning when I looked at it. It was a pistol and was an old looking pistol and had a hammer and trigger.’ The defendant "testified: ‘I brought it to town with me and hid it in my slicker, and *353 left it in my slicker until I started out and then took it out and put it in my pocket.’ The attempts to shoot the pistol were on the next morning after the pistol had been thrown in the wagon the night before.”

[Rehearing denied May 6, 1914.—Reporter.]

We tbi-nk the court properly refused to give appellant’s said special charge and there was no error in giving the paragraph of his charge quoted and excepted to above. We do not regard Blackburn v. State, 58 Crim. Rep., 48, 124 S. W. Rep., 666, cited and relied on by appellant, as in point. The statute is “if any person shall carry on or about his person any pistol, he shall be punished by fine,” etc. We think there is no error shown in the judgment of the court below and it will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 S.W. 511, 73 Tex. Crim. 352, 1914 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steele-v-state-texcrimapp-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack