Annanias Faulkner v. State

Citations

• 15 Tex. Ct. App. 115
• 1883 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 87

Syllabus

<p>1. Theft—Evidence.—Possession of Recently Stolen Property, unexplained, is not of itself enough to relieve criminative evidence, if that be all, of its circumstantial character. The position that such unexplained possession is positive, and not presumptive, proof cannot be maintained.</p> <p>2. Same—Circumstantial Evidence—Charge of the Court.—When the State relies solely upon circumstantial evidence to secure a conviction, it becomes the duty of the trial court to give in charge the princi-' pies of law governing such evidence, hiote a trial for theft wherein, the inculpatory evidence being purely circumstantial, the court should have submitted a charge appropriate thereto.</p> <p>8. Same—Case Stated.—In a prosecution for horse theft the State relied mainly upon the defendant’s possession of the recently stolen animal. The defendant, under such circumstances, was entitled to show that he purchased the animal from some one who had the possession before he did, but subsequent to the theft. Such a defense, whether the purchase was in good or bad faith, was sufficient to explain possession, and was a competent defense to a charge of theft of the animal. .Held, that the court below should have announced this principle in the charge to the jury.</p>