Roberts v. State

Citations

• 17 Tex. Ct. App. 82
• 1884 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 175

Syllabus

<p>1. Theft —Evidence —Possession of Recently Stolen Property—Cases Overruled.—It is now a settled rule in this State that if a party in whose possession goods recently stolen are found fails satisfactorily to account for his possession, the presumption of guilt arising from recent loss and possession will warrant a conviction. In so far as they announce a contrary doctrine the cases of Hannah v. The State, 1 Texas Ct. App., 583, and Truax v. The State, 13 Texas Ct. App., 330, are overruled.</p> <p>2. Same — Burden of Proof.— When, in accounting for his possession of recently stolen property, the defendant gives a natural, probable and satisfactory explanation, such explanation operates to rebut the presumption of guilt which attaches to his possession, and, in order to entitle the State to a conviction, the burden of proof devolves upon it, to show that such explanation was false.</p> <p>3. Same.—Bills of Sale are not deemed in law to be unquestionably infallible, and the State, in controverting their recitals, or in sontroverting the defendant’s explanation of his possession of recently stolen property, is not confined to rebutting testimony: but when, as in this case, the evidence tends to show an acting together, conspiracy or complicity in the taking (or with a view of covering up a fraudulent taking) between a vendor in a bill of sale and a defendant charged with the theft, may require the court to submit to the jury the bona fides of the bill of sale. Note a state of case wherein the charge of the court properly submitted this issue to the jury.</p> <p>■ 4. Same — Practice.— Circumstantial Evidence, as well as direct evidence, is competent to prove a fraudulent taking. Note evidence held sufficient to establish the fraudulent taking of a yearling.</p>