Hannah v. State

Citations

• 1 Tex. Ct. App. 578

Syllabus

<p>1. Btoictmeitt—Want op Foreman's Signature.—It is not a valid, exception, either to the form or the substance of an indictment, that the signature of the foreman of the grand jury does not appear to it or to its indorsement as a true bill. The omission might be supplied by amendment.</p> <p>3. Theft—Possession of Property Recently Stolen is a circumstance proper for the consideration of the jury in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused, but does not of itself constitute sufficient evidence to sustain a verdict of guilty.</p> <p>3. Same.—Explanations offered by the accused to account for his possession, when charged with having stolen the property, are competent evidence either for or against him. If the jury deem them to be reasonable, and they be not shown to be false, any presumption against him arising from the possession is rebutted, and further evidence is indispensable to a con- ■ viction.</p> <p>4. Same.—The mere possession of property recently stolen does not of itself shift the burden of proof from the state to the accused.</p>