Gonzalez v. State
| Decision Date | 07 April 1920 |
| Docket Number | Criminal 486 |
| Parties | SAMUEL GONZALEZ, Appellant, v. STATE, Respondent |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Greenlee. Frank B. Laine, Judge. Affirmed.
Mr. L Kearney, for Appellant.
Mr Wiley E. Jones, Attorney General, Mr. Louis B. Whitney Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. Dave W. Ling, for the State.
The defendant was charged with the crime of an assault with a deadly weapon, to wit, a pistol, upon one Frank Haddad. Pen Code, par. 219. From a judgment of conviction, the defendant appeals.
The only point made by the defendant on the appeal is that the evidence is insufficient to establish as a fact that the weapon with which the assault was made was a deadly weapon, inasmuch as it fails to show that the pistol was loaded with bullets. It appears that the complaining witness Haddad and the defendant had quarreled about the payment of two dollars which the complaining witness claimed the defendant owed him, and that during the quarrel the defendant threatened to kill Haddad. Soon after the quarrel, the complaining witness was driving along the road in an automobile in company with another man, and met the defendant, who said to him, "I am going to pay you," and drew a pistol and fired twice at the complaining witness while he was driving rapidly away. The first shot was fired at a distance of twenty-five to thirty feet from the complaining witness; the second at a distance somewhat greater. Neither shot took effect. The defendant's explanation of the affair is that the pistol was only loaded with blank cartridges, and that he fired at the complaining witness to "scare" him so that he would let him "alone." The pistol was examined by the arresting officer not long after the shooting took place, and was found to contain two empty shells and one loaded cartridge. The defendant explained that after the shooting he went home and was going to put the pistol where he got it, and that the loaded cartridge happened to be there, and he "placed the bullet in it."
In Territory v. Gomez, 14 Ariz. 139, 42 L.R.A (N.S.) 975, 125 P. 702, we held that a man pointing a cocked pistol at another in an angry and threatening manner was guilty of an assault with a deadly weapon, and that the burden of proving that the pistol was unloaded rested upon the accused. The present case is a much stronger one for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Rodgers
...pistol is a deadly weapon. There was no error in so doing. State v. Seymour, 101 Ariz. 498, 421 P.2d 517 (1966); Gonzalez v. State, 21 Ariz. 385, 188 P. 872 (1920). These are 'loaded pistol' cases and do not specifically indicate the caliber of the weapon. We see no basis for a distinction ......
-
State v. Balderrama
...State v. Cumbo, 96 Ariz. 385, 396 P.2d 11, it appears that the victim was struck by a gun. The gun was actually fired in Gonzalez v. State, 21 Ariz. 385, 188 P. 872; Wiley v. State, 19 Ariz. 346, 170 P. 869, L.R.A.1918D, 373; Hann v. State, 30 Ariz. 366, 247 P. 129; Tamborino v. Territory, ......
-
State v. Money, 2268
...501 P.2d 387 (1972); State v. Aldrich, 75 Ariz. 53, 251 P.2d 653 (1952); Lee v. State, 27 Ariz. 52, 229 P. 939 (1924); Gonzalez v. State, 21 Ariz. 385, 188 P. 872 (1920), and we have been given no persuasive reason for retreating from our position. Instead we find that the reason for the ru......
-
State v. Seymour
...the assault is committed with said weapon it constitutes the crime of assault with a deadly weapon under A.R.S. § 13--249. Gonzalez v. State, 21 Ariz. 385, 188 P. 872. The testimony was in conflict as to many of the facts surrounding the alleged crime charged, but a mere conflict of evidenc......