Haugabrook v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding defendant's explanation for possession of stolen property was not patently reasonable, thereby requiring jury resolution
• reversing petit theft conviction, after finding, inter alia, there was no evidence tying missing clothes to defendant
• noting the State did not establish that the person who purportedly gave consent lacked the legal ability to do so and that this fact was known to the defendant
• defendant's explanation for possession of stolen property was not patently reasonable, thereby requiring jury resolution

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).