State v. Hovis
| Decision Date | 23 February 1909 |
| Parties | STATE v. HOVIS. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Rev. St. 1899, § 1862 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 1283), makes it unlawful for one to carry concealed on or about his person any deadly or dangerous weapon. Section 1863 provides that the preceding section shall not apply to persons traveling through the state or if defendant has been threatened with great bodily harm or had good reason to carry the weapon in the necessary defense of his person, home, or property. Held, that where the intent to carry a deadly weapon concealed about the person exists, and the act is not within any of the exceptions of section 1863 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 1284), defendant is guilty though his ulterior motive in carrying the weapon was harmless, and hence, where defendant carried a pistol in his pocket with intent to keep it concealed, that he carried it to shoot any game he might see while taking his horse to the woods was no defense.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County; Jos. J. Williams, Judge.
George Hovis was convicted of carrying concealed weapons, and appeals. Affirmed.
The defendant was proceeded against on information for carrying concealed upon and about his person a "dangerous and deadly weapon, to wit, a pistol, in violation of section 1862, Rev. St. 1899 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 1283)." His trial was before the court and a jury, he was found guilty, his fine assessed at the sum of $50, and judgment went accordingly. From this defendant has appealed.
Defendant, testifying in his own behalf, said that on the day on which he was carrying the pistol he had it in his right hip pocket with his handkerchief. He was asked, when testifying as a witness in his own behalf: What the occasion was for having it in his pocket that day? Why he put it in his pocket that day at all? What was he doing? This was objected to as not being material to the defense; the court saying he "did not see the materiality of it." Whereupon counsel for the defendant stated that he would like to show that the defendant put that pistol in his pocket, went to the woods with a mare he was taking there, came back to the well, and got a drink, to which the court said he did not suppose that that was necessary and excluded the question and the offer. Defendant was then asked by his counsel whether he had the pistol in his pocket that day for the purpose of shooting at rabbits or wolves when he was going into the woods, and he answered, "Yes, sir." Whereupon the prosecuting attorney interposed that it was not material, and the court sustained this objection. Defendant was then asked if he was carrying the pistol on that day as a weapon, except for the purpose of shooting game. The prosecuting attorney objected to this, and the court sustained the objection. Exceptions were duly saved to all these rulings of the court. At the conclusion of the testimony, the defendant asked an instruction, in substance, that if the jury believed that defendant carried the pistol into the woods while taking his mare to the range and took the revolver for the purpose of shooting any wolf or other game he might see, and was not carrying it for defense or offense, they should find the defendant not guilty. This instruction the court refused and defendant duly excepted. Motion for new trial was filed and overruled, exceptions duly saved, and an appeal taken to this court.
J. H. Raney and V. V. Ing, for appellant. J. F. Meador, for the State.
REYNOLDS, P. J. (after stating the facts as above).
It is very evident that the learned circuit judge tried this case on the theory that section 1862, Rev. St. 1899 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 1283), made it unlawful for defendant "to carry concealed upon or about his person any deadly or dangerous weapon," and that it was unlawful for him to do so unless he came within the exceptions contained in section 1863 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 1284). There was no substantial evidence bringing this defendant within the exceptions contained in the latter section, and the determination of this case therefore turns upon the correctness of the ruling of the trial court in excluding the testimony offered by the defendant as to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Holbert
...carry it concealed, and that this is presumed from a demonstrated concealment. State v. Conley, 280 Mo. 21, 217 S.W. 29; State v. Hovis, 135 Mo.App. 544, 116 S.W. 6; State v. Carter, 259 Mo. 349, 168 S.W. 679; State v. Charles, Mo., 268 S.W.2d 830; State v. Crone, Mo., 399 S.W.2d 19; State ......
-
State v. Dorsey
...are not sound, are not in accord with various later cases, and that they should no longer be followed. In the case of State v. Hovis, 135 Mo.App. 544, 116 S.W. 6 (1909), the court stated that 'This statute against carrying deadly weapons concealed on or about the person was enacted to check......
-
State v. Jones
...in his pocket' was held to justify a conviction in State v. Athanas, 150 Mo.App. 588, 131 S.W. 373 (1910). In State v. Hovis, 135 Mo.App. 544, 116 S.W. 6 (Mo.App.1909), evidence that defendant was carrying a pistol in his right hip pocket was held to constitute carrying a concealed weapon u......
-
State v. Jordan
...39 Mo.App. 127, 130 (1890), and to check and prevent, if possible, a practice which leads to woundings and injuries, State v. Hovis, 135 Mo.App. 544, 116 S.W. 6, 7 (1909). The evil aimed at and attempted to be corrected by the general assembly is a serious one, and the intent at which the s......