Court Opinion

ID: 9507079
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 21:18:15.313958+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:14.622589
License: Public Domain

*83MR. JUSTICE HARRISON,
dissenting:
I dissent.
The testimony that the witness was not afraid that the appellant would shoot him should have been rejected. The witness’ state of mind was neither material to the crime with which appellant was charged, nor relevant to the jury’s determination whether the weapon was exhibited in a threatening manner. The purpose of the statute is to make punishable acts that endanger or are likely to endanger other persons without any specific intent to do so. Whether or not he drew the weapon for self-defense was a fact question to be determined by the jury and here they found contra to the appellant’s contentions and in my opinion we are bound by their finding. I would affirm the conviction.