Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

7 Blackf. 572

Walls v. State

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided December 11, 1845

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1845-12-11

<p>If a person, not being a traveller, carry a pistol concealed about his person, he is guilty of an indictable offence. His motive for carrying the pistol is immaterial.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1845-12-11

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently March 2024

1 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

201845185018601870188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 →

Dewey, J.

¶1— Indictment for carrying concealed weapons. One count charges the defendant below with carrying a dirk concealed about his person; and another alleges that he carried a pistol concealed in his pocket. Plea, not guilty; verdict, guilty and a fine of 20 dollars; judgment accordingly.

¶2On the trial, evidence was given tending to prove that the defendant, not being a traveller, carried a six barrel pistol about his person, which he frequently exhibited as “ a kind of curiosity.” The defendant prayed the Court to instruct the *573jury, that if they believed from the evidence the defendant carried the pistol merely for the purpose of exhibiting it as curiosity, they should find him not guilty. The Court refused SO to instruct.

J. B. Sleet/i and J. Ryman, for the plaintiff.A. A. Hammond and S. Major, for the state.

¶3There was no error in that refusal. First, because for aught that appears of record, there might have been evidence enough to convict the defendant on the first count of the indictment, for carrying a concealed dirk. And, secondly, because if the defendant, not being a traveller, carried a pistol concealed, he was guilty of the offence prohibited by the statute. R. S. 1843, p. 982. His motive for or'intention in carrying it constituted no part of the offence, and, of course, had nothing to do with his guilt or innocence of the fact charged — that of carrying the pistol concealed. If he exhibited his pistol so frequently that it could not be said to be concealed, that was another matter; but it was a fact exclusively for the jury; and .was not embraced by the instruction asked for.

Per Curiam.

¶4The judgment is affirmed with costs.

/7/blackf/572 · .json · Public domain