Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

39 La. Ann. 943

State v. Scott

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided October 15, 1887

Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 1887-10-15

<p>Although a pocket knife be not qo nomine a dangerous weapon within sec. 932 of R. S., it may, by its use, be considered such, under sec. 794 R. S., which provides punishment for the infliction, with a dangerous weapon, of a wound less than mayhem.</p> <p>A count, charging that the accused “with a certain dangerous weapon, commonly called a ■pocket knife, did feloniously inflict a severe wound less than mayhem on the body of,” when proved, justifies a verdi t of guilty,</p> <p>The ruling in 38 Ann. 942 has no bearing here.</p>

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““It may well be that the accused could not, under section 932, Rev. St., have been convicted for carrying a dangerous weapon, concealed on or about his person, because a pocketknife is not, eo nomine, a dangerous weapon ; but, it does not follow that, when under sec tion 794, Rev. St., the charge is that the accused did, with such a knife, feloniously inflict a severe wound, less than mayhem, such weapon may not be considered by the court and jury as a dangerous weapon, by the use made of it, within the meaning of that section, particularly as the description of the weapon is not, necessarily, required by the Statute, which merely mentions a dangerous weapon; i. e., any dangerous weapon, which may be so, by its use or in itself.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including State v. Beebe

Cited in Black's (1910)’s definition of “Dangerous Weapon” · Bouvier (1914)’s definition of “Dangerous Weapon”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1887-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently February 2006

1 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

101887189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Bermudez, C. J.

¶2The indictment contains two counts : On the first the accused was acquitted, but on the second he was convicted.

¶3The prosecution is based on section 794 of the Revised Statutes.

¶4The second count is that the defendant, with a certain dangerous weapon commonly called a pocket Jmi/e, did feloniously inflict a severe wound less than mayhem on the body of -, etc.

¶5The motion in arrest made by the accused, charges that the indictment is fatally defective, because a pocket knife is not a dangerous weapon and because it does not charge “with intent to Mil.”

¶6The Statute provides ( sec. 794 R. S.) that, “ whoever shall, with a dangerous weapon, or with intent to kill, inflict a wound less than mayhem upon another person, shall, upon conviction,” etc.

¶7It may well be that the accused could not, under sec. 932 R. S. have been convicted for carrying a dangerous weapon concealed on or about *944his person, because a pocket knife is not eo nomine a dangerous weapon; but it does not follow that when, under sec. 794 R. S., the charge is that tlie accused did, with such a knife, feloniously inflict a severe wound less than mayhem,'such weayion may not be considered by the court and-jury as a dangerous weapon, by the use made of it, within the meaning of that section, particularly as the description of the weapon is not necessarily required by the statute, which merely mentions a dangerous weapon, i. e., any dangerous weapon which may be so by its use, or in- itself.

¶8Under the count as made, evidence could well have been received and if deemed sufficient the jury could have convicted the accused for having with a dangerous weapon inflicted a wound less than mayhem, on the body of another person.

¶9It is true that the count does not charge that the accused did, with intent to hill, inflict a wound less than mayhem, though it does, that he did inflict the wound feloniously, but this is of no moment in this case.

¶10The charge was made in accord with the requirements of the statute and, if the evidence adduced justified the findings, the jury could legally return the verdict rendered.

¶11The ruling in State vs. Nelson, 38 Ann. 942, affords defendant no relief.

¶12Judgment affirmed.

/39/laann/943 · .json · Public domain