Case ID: ala_98/html/0071-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      McCLELLAN, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Dean v. The State.
    
      Indictment for Carrying a Concealed Pistol.
    
    1. Evidence; concealed pistol. — On a trial for carrying a pistol concealed about the person, evidence is admissible that witness saw a pistol in defendant’s hip-pocket a few minutes before the act with which he is charged.
    2. Irrelevant evidence; “going to raise hell.” — On a trial for carrying a concealed weapon, evidence is inadmissible that the defendant, a short time before the discovery of a pistol on his person, said he was “going to raise hell” that night.
    Féom tbe City Court of Montgomery.
    Tried before tbe Hon. Thomas M. ArriNGTON.
    Abe Dean was convicted of carrying a pistol concealed on bis person.
    On tbe trial tbe State introduced one Adam Ellis as a witness, wbo testified that one afternoon in tbe latter part of September, 1892, at balf-past 7 o’clock, Abe Dean was in witness’s back yard, and that, upon their having some angry words, tbe defendant drew bis pistol from bis hip pocket, which bad hitherto been concealed. Simon Nelson, another witness for tbe State, testified that on tbe same night, and a few minutes before this occurrence and dispute with Adam Ellis, tbe defendant was at bis bouse, and that while there be brushed bis coat aside, and disclosed a pistol in tbe hip pocket. Tbe defendant objected to tbe testimony of Simon Nelson, and moved to exclude tbe same, and duly excepted to tbe court’s overruling bis objection. This witness further testified that tbe defendant said “be was going to raise bell on tbe bill that night.” Tbe defendant objected to this evidence, and moved to exclude tbe -same from tbe jury. Tbe court overruled this objection and motion, and the defendant duly excepted. Four witnesses testified for tbe defendant that they were with tbe defendant on tbe night in question, and at tbe time spoken of, and that be did not have a pistol at all that night.
    JNO.W. A. SaNRORD, Jr., for appellant,
    cited Ingram v. The State, 39 Ala. 247; McDonald v. The State, 83 Ala. 46.
    Wi. L. Martih, Attorney-General for tbe State.
   McCLELLAN, J.

The offense of carrying a weapon concealed about tbe person being continuous in its nature, tbe trial court did not err in allowing tbe State to prove by the witness Simon Nelson that a few minutes bofore tbe time at which Adam Ellis saw tbe defendant draw a pistol from bis liip pocket which bad theretofore been concealed, and at a different place, be Nelson, had seen a pistol on defendant’s person when the latter’s coat bad been casually brushed aside.— Etress v. The State, 88 Ala. 191; Smith v. State, 79 Ala. 257; Ladd v. State, 92 Ala. 58.

The further testimony of this Avitness, Simon Nelson, to tbe effect that tbe defendant then said, “He was going to raise bell on tbe bill that night” ought, in our opinion, to have been excluded. We are unable to say that a man’s purpose to raise bell “on tbe bill” or elsewhere, affords any ground for a legitimate inference on tbe part of tbe jury that, even shortly before tbe time for tbe beginning of the proposed disturbance, be bad a pistol concealed about bis person. A contrary conclusion would have to be rested on the presumption that all men when intending to raise a disturbance, or to “raise bell,” Avliatever that may mean, arm themselves Avith deadly Aveapons Avhich they carry concealed. We do not think such a presumption can be indulged. Tbe evidence Avas irrelevant, and should have been excluded. For tbe error committed by tbe trial court in refusing to exclude it, tbe judgment must be reversed.

Tbe cause is remanded.