Fielding v. State

• Court: Alabama Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: DOWDELL, J.
• Citation: Fielding v. State, 135 Ala. 56, 33 So. 677 (Ala. 1903)
• Decision Date: 12 February 1903
• Parties: FIELDING v. STATE.

33 So. 677

135 Ala. 56

FIELDING v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 12, 1903

Appeal from city court of Montgomery; William H. Thomas, Judge.

Richard Fielding was convicted of carrying concealed weapons, and he appeals. Affirmed.

The appellant in this case, Richard Fielding, was indicted tried, and convicted for carrying a pistol concealed about his person. The evidence for the state tended to show that the defendant had concealed about his person, 12 months before the finding of the indictment, in Montgomery county, a 22-caliber pistol; that, although the mainspring was broken all the other parts of the pistol were in order; and that the pistol could be fired by striking the hammer with a knife or other instrument. There was evidence introduced on the part of the defendant that the pistol was broken and worthless and could not be shot, in the condition it was when carried by him. The defendant, as a witness in his own behalf testified that, on the day he was arrested for carrying a pistol concealed about his person, he bought the pistol for 25 cents; that it was broken, and could not be shot; that after buying it he became intoxicated, removed his coat, and put his pistol in his hip pocket; that he continued to drink, and became so drunk he did not know what happened; that, when he first put the pistol in his pocket, he could not say its handle was sticking out, and did not remember whether the pistol slipped down in his pocket, and became concealed, or not. The defendant requested the court to give the following written charges, and separately excepted to the court's refusal to give each of them as asked: "(1) If the jury are reasonably satisfied from the evidence that the defendant intended to carry the pistol unconcealed, and that the same became concealed without the defendant's intending it, then they must acquit the defendant. (2) If the jury are reasonably satisfied from the evidence that the defendant, at the time he was found with the pistol, was too intoxicated to form an intent, then they must acquit the defendant. (3) If the jury are satisfied from the evidence that the defendant had no intent to carry a pistol concealed about his person, then they must acquit the defendant. (4) If a man becomes so drunk that he loses the power to form an intent to break the law, then his drunkenness is an excuse for crime."

Chas. G. Brown, Atty. Gen., for the State.

DOWDELL J.

The...