Case Name: MIRELES v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1917-01-31
Citations: 192 S.W. 241
Docket Number: No. 4349
Parties: MIRELES v. STATE.
Judges: MORROW, J., absent.
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 192
Pages: 241–243

Head Matter:
MIRELES v. STATE.
(No. 4349.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jan. 31, 1917.
On Motion for Rehearing, Feb. 28, 1917.)
1. Weapons <®=>8 — Character or Weapon— “Bowie Knife.”
A knife in a scabbard with a blade nine inches long and a handle four or five inches long, described as a butcher knife was embraced in the term “bowie knife” as defined by Pen. Code 1911, art. 1027.
[Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Weapons, Cent. Dig. § 7.
Eor other definitions, see Words and Phrases, Bowie Knife.]
2. Weapons <@=>9 — Cabbying Adopt the Person — On One’s Own Premises.
It is no offense for a man to carry a bowie knife or a pistol about his person on his own premises. ,
[Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Weapons, Cent. Dig. § 8.]
3. Weapons <©=>9 — Cabbying About Person.
The rule exempting one from liability for carrying arms about his own premises does not extend to exempting him from liability for carrying arms on his person away from his own premises and where he is at work for another person.
[Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Weapons, Cent. Dig. § 8.}
On Motion for Rehearing.
4. Weapons <g=>9 — Carrying Weapons — On Rented Premises.
The right of one to carry a knife on his own premises extends to carrying a knife in a pasture where he keeps his team and has the right to go to get them, as part of his rented premises.
[Ed. Note. — Eor other eases, see Weapons, Cent. Dig. § 8.]
5. Criminal Law <§=>829(4) — Carrying on Person — Trial—Specific Instructions.
In trial for carrying a bowie knife, where the court charged that the statute provides that, if any person shall unlawfully carry on or about his person any bowie knife, he shall be punished by fine, etc., and then submitted the case to them in another paragraph and told them that, if they believed beyond a reasonable doubt that he did on a certain date have on or about his person a bowie knife, he would be guilty, etc., it was error to refuse accused’s special charge that, if when accused carried the knife he was on the premises of another person, naming him, and that he was at the time living on such premises, then he had the right to carry it there, where on this point the court had merely charged the jury that it was not unlawful for any person to carry a bowie knife upon his own property or upon property which he has rented or leased, and the state had made it a point to prove that accused had the knife on his person while on the premises specifically described in the requested charge; the general charge not being sufficient under the circumstances.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2011.]
6. Criminal Law <©=>829(4) — Carrying on Person — Trial—Specific Instructions.
In such case a paragraph of the instruction that, if defendant was on premises he had rented when arrested, and carried off the premises, he would not be unlawfully carrying a bowie knife, did not warrant refusal of his requested charge that, if accused had been arrested and forced to g'O from his rented premises along the public road and to a place where the deputy sheriff searched him and found the knife on him, it would not be unlawful for him to carry the knife along the road and to the place where searched, off his premises forcibly while under arrest; the instruction given not being sufficiently specific.
[Ed. Note. — Eor other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2011.}
Appeal from Guadalupe County Court; J. B. Williams, Judge.
Isidor Mireles was convicted of unlawfully carrying on his person a bowie knife, and appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
P. E. Campbell, of Seguin, for appellant. E. B. Hendricks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
PRENDERGAST, J.
Appellant was convicted of unlawfully carrying on his person a bowie knife and assessed the lowest punishment. It is unnecessary to take up all of appellant's assigned errors.
He contended that the knife with which he is charged with unlawfully carrying was not a bowie knife, hut was a butcher knife for cutting meat, bread, etc. We find with the record a certain knife in a scab-hard, the blade of which must be some nine inches in length with a handle four or five inches long, but it is in no way identified as the knife and scabbard which was found on appellant. Our statute (article 1027, P. C.) prescribes that a bowie knife means any knife intended to be worn upon the person which is capable of inflicting death, and not commonly known as a' pocket knife. The knife described by the witnesses, and certainly the knife with the record if it was the knife carried by appellant on his person, would certainly be embraced in the statutory definition of a bowie knife. In Hernandez v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. R. 272, 22 S. W. 972, where a party was indicted for an assault with intent to murder with a bowie knife, and the proof showed that the knife with which the offense in that instance was committed was a butcher knife, it was held to be in effect the same thing in the view of such statute. The testimony by appellant himself in this case shows that he carried this knife in a scabbard on his person a great deal in and about his own premises.
The law is that it is no offense for a man to carry such arms as this, or a pistol, about his person on his own premises. In view of the testimony, showing he so carried it on premises rented by him, the court should have so instructed the jury in this instance.
The testimony further showed, it seems without contradiction, that the fact that appellant was claimed to be unlawfully carrying said knife on his person was communicated to the sheriff, and the sheriff instructed one of the witnesses in effect to arrest the appellant and take him along a public road off of his own premises to the place of another party to which the officer was going. This witness thereupon arrested appellant on the premises of which he was the tenant, and while under this arrest forced him1 to leave his own premises, when he had this knife on his person in a scabbard, go along a public road, and to the place designated by the officer off of his premises. Hater the officer arrived there, searched the appellant, and found such a knife on his person in a scabbard stuck in his pants. The state was particular to make all this probf, not only by the officer, but by other witnesses as well, and it seems the state, because of the appellant's carrying this knife on this occasion, sought his conviction. The appellant requested a charge to the effect that, if he had been arrested as stated and forced to go from his rented premises wherein he lived along the public road and to the other place designated by the sheriff, that that would not be an unlawful carrying of said knife under the law. This charge was refused. It clearly presents error. The charge should have been given. "
The testimony on another phase of the case, though disputed, showed in effect that appellant went from Ms own rented premises into the field of another party with this knife on his person, and there he and other persons had a fuss or fight, and that he had this knife on this occasion. The testimony is disputed as to whether or not the appellant was picking cotton under the employment of the owner of that field at the time. I-Ie claims, however, that he had the right to carry arms on his person off of his place to where he was at work for another person. This is not the law. If that were true, practically every person in Texas could lawfully carry prohibited arms on or a|)out his person.
For the errors above pointed out, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
MORROW, J., absent.
other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes