Williams v. Com.
| Decision Date | 30 October 1953 |
| Citation | 43 A.L.R.2d 490,261 S.W.2d 807 |
| Parties | WILLIAMS v. COMMONWEALTH. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Fred K. Cope, Hazard, for appellant.
J. D. Buckman, Atty. Gen., Zeb A. Stewart, Asst. Atty. Gen., Emmett G. Fields, Whitesburg, for appellee.
STANLEY, Commissioner.
State patrolmen cruising highway No. 15 one night saw the tracks of an automobile along the side of the road and found it parked partly on and partly off the paved road with Tom Williams asleep at the wheel. They aroused Williams and arrested him for being drunk in a public place. After putting him in the patrol car, the officers searched the car and found a pistol in the unlocked receptacle in front of the seat, commonly called the glove compartment. Williams was convicted of carrying a deadly weapon concealed and sentenced to serve two years in the penitentiary. He appeals.
The only ground the appellant argues for reversal is that of an unlawful search. There is no merit in his contention. It was the duty of the officers to arrest him for he was violating two statutes. KRS 189.450 and 244.020(2). The search of the automobile was warranted. Patrick v. Commonwealth, 199 Ky. 83, 250 S.W. 507; Ingle v. Commonwealth, 204 Ky. 518, 264 S.W. 1088; Commonwealth v. Lewis, 309 Ky. 276, 217 S.W.2d 625.
That there may be no miscarriage of justice, we go beyond the point argued to consider whether there was a violation of the statute prohibiting the carrying of a concealed weapon.
At common law or by very early statute in England, people were prohibited from going armed that they might not terrorize the King's subjects. Wharton's Criminal Law, Sec. 1876. That was never the law in this country but from an early date, with the invention of small arms, statutes were enacted condemning the practice of carrying a deadly weapon concealed on or about the person. The reason for these statutes, it has been said, is 'because persons becoming suddenly angered and having such a weapon in their pocket, would be likely to use it, which in their sober moments they would not have done, and which could not have been done had not the weapon been upon their person.' State v. Chippey, 14 Del. 583, 33 A. 438; Note 63, 68 C.J. 16.
The condemnation of our statute is against anyone '[carrying] concealed a deadly weapon, other than an ordinary pocket knife, on or about his person'. KRS 435.230. Substantially the same language is used in many other states. Any mode is within the terms of the statute where the concealed weapon is carried in such close proximity to the person that it is readily accessible and available for use. Commonwealth v. Nunnelley, 247 Ky. 109, 56 S.W.2d 689, 88 A.L.R. 805; Hampton v. Commonwealth, 257 Ky. 626, 78 S.W.2d 748; Turley v. Commonwealth, 307 Ky. 89, 209 S.W.2d 843. Of necessity, the culpable factor of accessibility or availability must vary according to a reasonable regard for the particular facts. The opinions of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cole
...sober moments they would not have done, and which could not have been done had the weapon been upon their person." Williams v. Commonwealth, 261 S.W.2d 807, 807-08 (Ky. 1953) (internal citations omitted). The Arizona Court of Appeals has noted similar reasoning: "[T]he statute has a reasona......
-
State v. Grandberry
...ensure the safety of the public, see State v. Walls, 190 Wis. 2d 65, 71, 526 N.W.2d 765 (Ct. App. 1994) (quoting Williams v. Commonwealth, 261 S.W.2d 807, 807-808 (Ky. 1953) (governments historically prohibited the carrying of concealed weapons "because persons becoming suddenly angered and......
-
State v. Hamdan, 01-0056-CR.
...have done, and which could not have been done had not the weapon been upon their person." Id. at 71 (quoting from Williams v. Commonwealth, 261 S.W.2d 807, 807-08 (Ky. 1953), with citations in Williams omitted). In short, carrying a concealed weapon permits a person to act violently on impu......
-
Com. v. Lee
...within an exemption under § 129C or the conditions set out in § 10(a). Compare State v. Butler, 325 So.2d 55 (Fla.App.1976); Annot., 43 A.L.R.2d 490 (1955).d. Mass.Adv.Sh. (1978) 2994, 2998-3002.e. Mass.Adv.Sh. (1979) at 587-588.f. Mass.App.Ct.Adv.Sh. (1978) 623.5 See also Commonwealth v. S......
-
The licensing of concealed handguns for lawful protection: support from five state Supreme Courts.
...on State Gun Control Legislation, 38 U. CHI. L. REV. 185, 204 (1970)). (58) Cole, 665 N.W.2d at 344 (quoting Williams v. Commonwealth, 261 S.W.2d 807, 807 (Ky. (59) Sir John Knight's Case, 87 Eng. Rep. 75, 90 Eng. Rep. 330 (King's Bench 1687). The court and jury were affirming the tradition......