Navarro v. State

• Decision Date: 10 October 1906
• Citation: 96 S.W. 932
• Parties: NAVARRO v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

96 S.W. 932

NAVARRO v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

October 10, 1906.

Appeal from Red River County Court; J. R. Kennedy, Judge.

Albert Navarro was convicted of unlawfully carrying a pistol, and appeals. Affirmed.

W. W. Johnson, for appellant. Howard Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

HENDERSON, J.

Appellant was convicted of unlawfully carrying a pistol, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $25.

Appellant contends that the court committed a material error in instructing the jury as follows: After charging the statute, the court proceeds: "The foregoing statute does not apply to persons traveling, as long as they continue their journey, and are engaged in business connected with their journey. The word `traveler' is used in its ordinary sense. But this exemption does not apply to travelers who stop in their journey, and engage in business or pleasure not connected with their journey. If you believe from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant had on his person a pistol, as charged; but you should further believe from the evidence, or have a reasonable doubt of same that, at the time he so had said pistol, he was a traveler, pursuing his journey, and engaged in business connected with the same, then you will acquit the defendant under first count. If you believe from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant had on his person a pistol, as charged, but that, at the time he so had said pistol, he was a traveler, but should you further believe beyond a reasonable doubt that at said time he was not in pursuit of his journey, or engaged in business connected with his journey, then you will find the defendant guilty, and assess his punishment, etc." It occurs to us that said charge taken as a whole is not a charge on the weight of evidence; but, in general terms, defines a traveler, and, in accordance with the decisions of this court, informed the jury that appellant was only protected as a traveler as long as he was engaged in the pursuit of his journey, or some business connected therewith. If he was not so engaged, he was amenable to the statute. We believe that the case, as shown by the facts, authorized the jury to believe that appellant was not a traveler at the time he was found carrying a pistol. Concede there is no question that he was a traveler when he came to the ferry, going to the territory; he ceased to be such when he found that he could not cross, and then went to a neighboring...