Summary
The Alabama Court of Appeals held that the evidence did not conclusively establish that Nichols was carrying a pistol within the meaning of the 1909 Alabama statute prohibiting carrying a pistol on premises not owned or controlled by the defendant. Because reasonable inferences could be drawn from the circumstances, the trial court erred by giving the State the general affirmative charge, and the conviction was reversed and remanded.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the 1909 statute prohibiting carrying a pistol on premises not one's own or under one's control was constitutional.
- Whether the trial court erred by giving the State the general affirmative charge when the evidence required an inference that Nichols was carrying the pistol in the statutory sense.
Holdings
- The constitutional challenge to section 2 of the 1909 act was properly rejected because the statute had already been upheld by the Alabama Supreme Court.
- The trial court erred in giving the State the general affirmative charge because the evidence permitted reasonable inferences both for and against the conclusion that Nichols carried the pistol as contemplated by the statute.
Key quotations
“The word “carry,” as used in the statute, is synonymous with “bear,” and, under the facts in this case, the court should have submitted the question to the jury to determine, from the surroundings and attendant circumstances, whether the defendant, having been seen with the pistol in his hand while in' the act of putting it in the pan, was carrying it in the sense of bearing arms, in violation of the statute, on premises not his own or under his control.” (117)
“The general affirmative charge should never be given against a defendant when it takes from the jury the right to weigh.the testimony and especially when there are inferences that may be drawn from the evidence that do not necessarily establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” (118)
Factual background
Two witnesses saw Nichols reach over a meal pan and place or drop a pistol into it while he was in the kitchen of premises that were not his and were not under his control. They did not see where he obtained the pistol, did not know how long he had possessed it, and saw it in his hand only momentarily as he moved it toward the pan. The evidence therefore established possession of the pistol at the moment of placement but did not directly establish that he carried it in the statutory sense of bearing arms.
Procedural history
Nichols was prosecuted under section 2 of the 1909 act regulating the carrying of pistols. The Pike Law Court rejected his constitutional challenge and gave the State the general affirmative charge despite evidence that witnesses saw him place a pistol in a meal pan but did not see where he obtained it or how long he possessed it. The Alabama Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.
Remand instructions
Remand for further proceedings with the issue of whether Nichols carried the pistol in the statutory sense submitted to the jury rather than resolved by the court's affirmative charge.