State v. . McManus

MrreiMON, J. The defendant has no ground of complaint against the .charge of the court. It was as favorable to him as the law would permit. He was off' his own land, on the highway, and had with him, in his possession and about his person, a pistol. Under the statute, prima facie, he had it concealed about his person, and the onus was on him to show that he did not have it concealed. The state offered testimony tending to prove that it was con *558 cealed on his person. The defendant was examined on his own behalf, and his testimony tended to prove that he did not have it so concealed, but carried it openly, where it might be easily seen by any person, and for an innocent and proper purpose. The testimony was conflicting, and it was the province of the jury to pass upon it- and find the facts of the matter. The court left the whole of it fairly to the jury, and they by their verdict found that the defendant had and carried “ concealed about his person” a pistol, off his own premises, as charged in the indictment. What the court said to the jury in respect to the intent with which the defendant carried the pistol was favorable to him. The court might have told them that if the defendant had the pistol off his premises and concealed’about his person, the law 2)resurned the criminal intent, and it w'as for the defendant to rebut this presumption by testimony sufficient to satisfy them of his innocent purpose. The defendant relied upon State v. Gilbert, 87 N. C., 527, in regard to the question of intent. That case is not like this. There, the jury found the fact in a special verdict that there vras no criminal intent. Here, the jury find there was the criminal intent, this question being fairly left to them upon the evidence. The court told the jury that in passing upon the question of intent, they might consider the evidence that the defendant showed a disposition to use the pistol. This was relevant for this purpose, and it was left to the jury to consider it with the other testimony, for what it was worth, in enabling them to pass upon the animus. Howr a man uses or manifests a purpose to use a deadly weapon is evidence of his purpose in having it concealed about his person, more or less weighty, according to the circumstances of the case. It is insisted that the pistol, if in the basket and concealed, was not about the person of the defendant, though upon his lap. Such is not the meaning of the statute. The language is not “concealed on his person,” but “concealed about his person”; *559 that is, concealed near, in close proximity to him, and within his convenient control and easy reach, so that he conld promptly use it, if prompted to do so by any violent motive. If the pistol was concealed in the basket, and that was in the defendant's lap, on his arm, or fastened about his person, or if placed near his person, though not touching it, this would be sufficient. It makes no difference how if is concealed, so it is on or near to and within the reach and control of the person charged. The purpose of the statute is a wholesome one. It is to protect individuals against sudden, unexpected, dangerous and perhaps deadly violence inflicted with weapons that the assailant has concealed in some way, on, about, or conveniently near to his person, and which he may use under sudden impulse, or deliberately and unfairly against one taken unawares; and as well to conserve the public peace and safety. It must receive such reasonable construction as will effectuate this general purpose. There is na error, and the judgment must be affirmed. It is accordingly so ordered. Let this be»certified. No error. Affirmed.