Case ID: sw_288/html/1077-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LATTIMORE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HOLLIDAY v. STATE.
    (No. 10404.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 17, 1926.
    Rehearing Denied Dec. 22, 1926.)
    1. Criminal law I44( 14) — Where no error in charge is complained of, it is presumed law was correctly submitted to jury.
    It is presumed that law was submitted to jury in manner acceptable to defendant, where no error in charge is complained of.
    2. Criminal law <@^>747 — Reconciliation of conflicts in testimony is for jury.
    Jury are by statute exclusive judges of credibility of witnesses and weight of testimony, and reconciliation of conflicts therein is their province.
    On Motion for Rehearing.
    3. Criminal law <®=o633(I) — In prosecution for carrying pistol, action of prosecuting attorney, placing pistol in view of jury after identifying it, held not reversible error.
    In prosecution for carrying pistol, act of prosecuting attorney in exhibiting pistol to witness, asking him if pistol was taken from defendant, and placing pistol on table in view, of jury, held not reversible error.
    4.Weapons <©=> 17 (4) — Evidence held to sustain conviction for unlawfully carrying pistol.
    Where defendant charged with unlawfully carrying pistol stated on arrest that he carried it as protection against hijackers, evidence held sufficient to sustain verdict, though at trial defendant claimed he was returning pistol to his home.
    Appeal from Jefferson County Court at law; C. N. Ellis, Judge.
    Roy Holliday was convicted for unlawfully carrying a pistol, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Rose & Johnson, of Port Arthur, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., of Groesbeck, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction in the county court at law of Jefferson county for unlawfully carrying a pistol; punishment, fine of $100.

There is no question of the fact that appellant was carrying a pistol. He was found with it in his possession. He told the officers' at the time he was carrying it for protection. On the trial of the case he testified that he had left the pistol at the home of a relative in Beaumont while on his way from Port Arthur, his home, to Lake Charles, La., and that on the occasion of his arrest he had gone from Port Ar-. thur to get the pistol and take it back home. We presume that the law of this issue was submitted to the jury in a manner acceptable to the appellant, as there is no complaint of any error in the charge. The reconciliation of conflicts in testimony is for the jury, who are made by statute the exclusive judges of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of their testimony. They have solved the question, as to whether appellant was in fact carrying the pistol lawfully, against him.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

Appellant files a motion for rehearing, insisting that the facts herein do not show him guilty of a violation of the law. Responding to appellant’s insistence that we did not discuss his bill' of exceptions No. 2, we' state that in our opinion the action of the prosecuting attorney in exhibiting to a witness on the stand a certain pistol, and asking him if that was the pistol which he took from appellant on the occasion in question, and then 'placing the pistol on a table in the courtroom where the jury could see it, presents no reversible error. The instant case differs materially on its facts from the case of Farris v. State, 94 Tex. Cr. R. 306, 251 S. W. 224, cited by appellant in his motion. In the case before us appellant gave an explanation of his possession of the pistol to the officers when they arrested hitn upon the charge of carrying same that was apparently inconsistent with the theory advanced by him upon the trial hereof. Upon this trial appellant accounted for his possession • of the pistol at the time of his arrest solely upon the proposition that he had left it at his mother-in-law’s home in Beaumont some time before, and that'he had gone from Port Arthur to Beaumont after it on the afternoon of his arrest, and was conveying it to his home in Port Arthur. ■ When arrested, he made no such explanation, but said more than once thát he was carrying the pistol because he was afraid of hijackers. We further observe that, while he claimed on this trial to have gone to his mother-in-law’s and obtained the pistol for the purpose of carrying it to his home in Port Arthur on ,the afternoon of 'his arr'esii/'he did not produce as witnesses his mother-in-law or any other person who was át the houá'e where he claimed to have gotten it, nor did he account in any way. for the failure' to produce such-testimony. ' ,”

Believing the cáse has bpen properly disposed of,,the motion ! for rehearing will.be overruled.' . 
      ©soFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER 'in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes