State v. Miles
| Citation | 124 Mo. App. 283,101 S.W. 671 |
| Parties | STATE v. MILES. |
| Decision Date | 02 April 1907 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
traveling through the state, which under the statute is a good defense. While riding on a train he had struck the conductor over the head with the pistol immediately before entering the state, and after crossing the state line sat holding the pistol in his hand, but partially concealed. Held, that what took place before entering the state was admissible to show that he was not a peaceable traveler through the state.
2. SAME — SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE.
In a prosecution for carrying a concealed pistol, evidence examined, and held sufficient to show that the weapon was concealed.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Pemiscot County; Henry C. Riley, Judge.
George H. Miles was convicted of carrying a concealed pistol, and appeals. Affirmed.
Duncan & Bragg, for appellant. L. L. Collins, for the State.
Appellant was convicted of carrying a pistol concealed upon his person. He did not deny having the pistol on his person, but denied that he had it concealed, and also set up as a special defense the fact that he was traveling peaceably through the state at the time. The evidence shows that about the 1st day of July, 1905, appellant, with two or three friends, took passage on a Frisco train at Memphis, Tenn., and paid their fare to Big Creek, Ark. Their destination, however, was Hayti, Pemiscot county, Mo. It was night when the train reached Big Creek, and appellant was intoxicated and asleep. The conductor of the train was about to wake him at Big Creek, when his companions informed the conductor that appellant would go on to Hayti, and paid his fare to that station. Appellant was awakened by his friends, and told that the conductor was about to put him off the train. A short time thereafter, the conductor came through the car, and appellant asked him why he did not wake him, and, without a word from the conductor, struck him on the head with a pistol. This took place in Arkansas. After the train crossed the line into Missouri, in Pemiscot county, appellant sat quietly in his seat with his coat off, holding the pistol in one hand, but partially concealed by his vest and pants. According to the state's evidence, no part of the pistol was in open view, and could only be seen by looking in a certain...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Purlee
...is discernible only from one particular vantage point. State v. Cavin, 555 S.W.2d 653, 654 (Mo.App.1977), citing State v. Miles, 124 Mo.App. 283, 101 S.W. 671, 672 (Mo.App.1907). Moreover, when a loaded firearm is carried in a vehicle within easy reach of the occupants, "ordinary observatio......
-
Mularkey v. State
...as to whether or not the weapon was concealed, the issue is for the jury. Hampton v. State, 133 Ala. 180, 32 So. 230;State v. Miles, 124 Mo. App. 283, 101 S. W. 671;State v. Mangum, 187 N. C. 477, 121 S. E. 765;State v. Lilly, 116 N. C. 1049, 21 S. E. 563. For the reasons stated, the judgme......
-
State v. Murphy, 41873
...concealed by the jacket pocket and partially concealed by appellant's arm and hand, that would be sufficient. State v. Miles, 124 Mo.App. 283, 101 S.W. 671 (1907) cited with approval in State v. Gibbs, 600 S.W.2d 594, 597 (Mo.App.1980). See State v. Achter, supra, 828. At trial, appellant p......
-
State v. Tibbs
...if it is discernible from only one particular vantage point. Crews, 722 S.W.2d at 654; Cavin, 555 S.W.2d at 654; State v. Miles, 124 Mo.App. 283, 101 S.W. 671, 672 (1907). Whether a weapon is on or about the person, as forbidden by § 571.030.1(1), is determined by whether it is in such clos......