Court Opinion

ID: 9706605
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:47:22.756504+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:23.944378
License: Public Domain

*14On Petition for Rehearing
Draper, C. J.
Because of appellant’s earnest insistence, in his petition for rehearing, that we erred in holding the evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction of assault and battery with intent to kill and murder, we have again carefully reviewed it.
We think appellant’s contention that there was no evidence to show that the burn was not on Kerry’s tie before he became involved with the appellant is refuted by the record, which reveals that after Kerry’s shirt, tie and battle jacket were identified by Kerry as being his, and were introduced in evidence, Kerry answered the following questions concerning them:'
“Q. Is this the same tie and shirt and battle-jacket you were wearing on the evening in question, at the time this gentleman shot at you?
“A. Yes sir.
“Q. Sergeant, at the time did you notice anything different about this fie after you had met Mr. Stokes ?
“A. Right here. It has been perforated from powder burns.”
With reference to the shirt, the following appeared on cross-examination of Kerry by the appellant:
“Q. All this big crowd of people, didn’t anybody see that your shirt had been creased by a ' bullet? Didn’t the bus driver call it to your attention ?
“A. No sir.”
We think it is significant that this question was asked after the shirt had been produced in evidence, and that there had been no previous testimony whatever on the subject.1
*15From the foregoing taken from the record and the facts recited in our original opinion, we think the trial court was justified in finding that the appellant shot at Kerry with a pistol as charged in the indictment and struck his clothing, and although a felonious intent can be inferred from the intentional use of a deadly weapon, we also think there was some evidence of intent.
The appellant insists, however, there is no evidence that the pistol was loaded with gunpowder and metal bullets. At the trial Kerry identified the weapon which he said the appellant aimed at him by its size, shape and caliber. It is true no one testified he saw any bullet emerging from the barrel of the weapon, and the evidence does not disclose that any was ever found. It would seem to us, however, from the fact that Kerry’s tie was burned, that the court could find the weapon was loaded with gunpowder, and if what was said about the shirt being creased by a bullet was of no value whatever, we still think the evidence was sufficient.
A pistol is a deadly weapon per se. State v. Litman (1927), 106 Conn. 345, 138 Atl. 132; McCoy v. State (1932), 122 Tex. Cr. 298, 54 S. W. 2d 530. Moreover, direct evidence of the fact that a weapon is loaded is unnecessary when such may be inferred from other facts and circumstances in evidence. 6 C.J.S., Assault & Battery, §125 (b). The appellant suggests that the pistol may have been loaded with blank cartridges, but no one, including appellant’s wife, who said she owned the gun, so testified, and we feel that the evidence, taken together, amply justified the belief that this appellant was not playing with blanks that night.
*16Rehearing denied.
Gilkison, J., not participating.
Note. — Reported in 115 N. E. 2d 442.

. After both sides had rested and the trial court had requested a recommendation as to penalty, the prosecutor stated without objection:
*15“MR. SPARRENBERGER: Your Honor, from the evidence presented — his tie and his shirt — about another half inch and we would have had a dead man. I think the state can only ask for a complete penalty.”