Rudolph Guy v. the State of Texas

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an instruction on the presumption regarding consent for criminal property damage in the fourth degree to be constitutional
• holding that a jury may infer the existence of knowledge from the defendant’s unexplained possession of recently stolen mail where there was no plausible explanation for possession that was consistent with innocence
• recognizing that “the mere fact that there is some evidence tending to explain a defendant’s possession consistent with innocence does not bar” reliance on the inference of guilt
• holding that common sense and experience permitted jury to conclude from defendant’s unexplained possession of recently-stolen checks that defendant must have known or been aware of the high probability that checks were stolen
• holding constitutional a permissive statutory presumption regarding a negotiable instrument where the jury was similarly instructed
• stating that the legislative history for the 1939 amendment to the statute precluding possession of stolen mail “conclusively refutes” the argument that the government must prove specifically that the defendant knew the property was stolen from the mail

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).