Lehman v. State

Citations

• 18 Tex. Ct. App. 174
• 1885 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 76

Syllabus

<p>1. Theft.— Possession of Stolen Property, whether recent or remote, is a circumstance admissible in evidence, tobe considered by the jury in connection with the other proof in the case. But, to warrant the inference of guilt from the possession alone, the possession must be a personal one; must be recent and unexplained; and must involve a distinct and conscious assertion of claim by the possessor. See the opinion in extenso for an exposition of each of these criminative characteristics, and for a review of elementary and judicial authorities upon the subject.</p> <p>2. Same — Charge of the Court.— As a general rule, if a person in whose exclusive possession goods recently stolen are found, fails to give a reasonable account of his possession when it is incumbent upon him to do so, the inference of guilt arising from the possession and the recent theft is sufficient to sustain his conviction for the theft. Nevertheless, this inculpatory inference is not a presumption of law, but is a deduction of fact to be drawn by the jury alone, unforestalled by any instructions from the court upon the weight of the evidence. But when this inculpatory possession constitutes the only evidence criminative of the accused, the case is one of circumstantial evidence alone, and the legal principles which control that species of proof should be given in charge to the jury.</p> <p>8. Fact Case.—See in the opinion the recapitulation of inculpatory proof held insufficient to support a conviction for theft.</p>