J. F. Bryant v. State

Citations

• 16 Tex. Ct. App. 144
• 1884 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 81

Syllabus

<p>i i. Theft—Indictment—Arrest of Judgment.—Indictment for theft described the stolen property as “ one twenty dollar gold piece of the value of twenty dollars, current money of the United States, and one five dollar bill in money of the value of five dollars, and one pocket knife of the value of fifty cents, of the corporeal personal property of J. W. Me-Knight.” The motion in arrest of judgment alleged the insufficiency of the description of the alleged stolen property. Held, sufficient, under Article 733 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which declares “money” • tobe “property,” and under Article 437 of the same Code, which provides that, “when it becomes necessary to describe property of any kind in an indictment, a general description of the same by name, kind, quality, number and ownership, if known, shall be sufficient.” The motion in arrest of judgment was properly overruled.</p> <p>3. Same—Possession oe Recently Stolen Property—Charge oe the Court.—The trial court charged the jury as follows: “ Possession of property recently stolen is evidence against the accused, which, like all other evidence, is to be taken and considered by the jury in connection with other testimony in the case.” Held, that exception to the charge was well taken, inasmuch as in charging upon this evidence, separate and apart from the other evidence in the case, the court gave to it undue prominence; and particularly was it error to charge positively that such . evidence was against the defendant. .</p> <p>8. Same.—The true rule on the subject is that “the possession of property recently stolen is merely a fact or circumstance to be considered by the jury in connection with all the other evidence submitted to them, in de- . termining the guilt of the possessor.”</p> <p>4. Same.—Nor is it always that the possession of recently stolen property is evidence against the possessor. It is always admissible evidence in a trial for theft, but it is for the jury and not the judge to say whethe