Lee v. State

Citations

• 27 Tex. Ct. App. 475
• 11 S.W. 483
• 1889 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 67

Syllabus

<p>Theft—Possession of Recently Stolen Property—Charge of the Court.—The rule has been announced in repeated decisions of this court that the possession of recently stolen property is not of itself proof positive of theft, but that the proof of such possession, “however recent, and whether explained or not, is merely a fact or circumstance to be considered by the jury, in connection with all the other facts submitted to them, in determining the guilt of the possessor.” The same rule requires that when the accused, upon being first challenged, offers an explanation of his possession, it devolves upon the court to instruct the jury as to the effect of -such explanation;—that is, if the explanation is reasonable, it will prevail as against the naked possession unless rebutted by the State. The presumption of guilt which attends possession of stolen property is a presumption of fact for the jury, and not of law. In this ease the charge of the court, otherwise correct, instructed the jury that the ■ “possession of recently stolen property is presumptive evidence of guilt.” Meld, error. See the opinion in ex-tenso on the subject.</p>