How is that for an appellate court case?Appellant-defendant was convicted . . . by a jury . . . [of] knowingly and willfully resisting a Lawful arrest by a duly authorized peace officer for Baldwin County, to-wit, James B. Johnson, a Deputy Sheriff. Recompiled Code 1958, Title 14, s 402 reads:
â€˜Any person who knowingly and wilfully opposes or resists any officer of the state or county or municipality in serving, executing, or attempting to serve or execute, any legal writ or process whatsoever, or who resists any lawful arrest, whether under process or not, shall, on conviction, be fined not less than fifty nor more than one thousand dollars, and may also be imprisoned in the county jail, or sentenced to hard labor for the county, for not more than six months.â€™
The trial court fined him $250.00 and sentenced him to thirty days in the county jail.
. . .
. . . charged the defendant with resisting a lawful arrest. The information comported with the statute, supra. However, the State failed to prove that the arrest was lawful. In fact it was not lawfully authorized because defendant was not carrying a concealed pistol. The State's evidence shows that the pistol was in a scabbard or holster, worn on the side and was not covered.
We call attention to Title 14, s 175, Recompiled Code 1958, which reads:
â€˜No person shall carry a pistol in any vehicle or concealed on or about his person, except on his land, in his own abode or fixed place of business, without a license therefor as hereinafter provided.â€™
It is to be observed that this law prohibits carrying a pistol (concealed or not) in any vehicle or â€˜concealed on or about his person, except . . . without a license therefor . . ..â€™ It does not prohibit an unconcealed pistol. Acts 1956, 2d Session, No. 43, p. 336.
It is immaterial that defendant did or did not have a pistol permit. He had a right to carry the pistol unconcealed at the time and place of arrest. Defendant was under no duty to submit to any other than a lawful arrest.
. . .
In view of the evidence of the arresting officer, adduced by the State, we see no point in another trial. The judgment is reversed and the cause is rendered. The defendant is discharged.
Dude, you don't even have to go the conspiracy route and think frame job. There are lots of other charges that an officer could make, even if a stretch, from such contacts.jgullock said:I think Boyracers point is that if they really wanted to they could frame him - say he was carrying concealed even if he wasn't. His word against the cop. Look at the Atlanta cops - how much drug planting has been going on before they got caught?
Disorderly conduct is one, but an easier would be criminal trespass. I could also see obstruction charges easily coming out of such contacts. I'm thinking in terms of state law as local ordinances could really open up a bigger can or worms.Malum Prohibitum said:Um, like what? In this case, the officer also charged Mr. Mathis with Disorderly Conduct.
Putting it out there as an example. Local ordinances also have to be considered. Doesn't hotlanta have a local ordinance pretty much classifying anything a person could possibly do as disorderly conduct?Malum Prohibitum said:Criminal trespass would not fly on this one (at least not under Georgia law).
Nah, couldn't be that vague. It is probably more like any action that would cause a person to call 911 or tell a policman about.legacy38 said:Putting it out there as an example. Local ordinances also have to be considered. Doesn't hotlanta have a local ordinance pretty much classifying anything a person could possibly do as disorderly conduct?Malum Prohibitum said:Criminal trespass would not fly on this one (at least not under Georgia law).
In GA you can be given a pistol at 18. You can even buy a pistol from a non-FFL at 18 according to what I've read on this board. You just can't carry it unless you get the GFL but to do that you have to be over 21.Don't you have to be 21 for a handgun?
I don't think so. All they did was call the police.DougG_ATL said:The good part is that Mathis will have a HELL of a case against Wal-Mart if he has the charges dropped. Their employees' comments might make for a great little out-of-court settlement.
I don't think so. All they did was call the police.[/quote:2pr79y8y]Malum Prohibitum said:[quote="DougG_ATL":2pr79y8y]The good part is that Mathis will have a HELL of a case against Wal-Mart if he has the charges dropped. Their employees' comments might make for a great little out-of-court settlement.
fyi: i came out of alabama :shock:Like I've always said... Best thing to come out of Alabama is I-20.