Taylor v. State

Citations

• 15 Tex. Ct. App. 356
• 1884 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 10

Syllabus

<p>1. Theft—Practice—Possession of Recently Stolen Property.— The ancient rule that a party was not permitted to introduce his explanation of his possession of recently stolen property, unless he was in possession at the time the explanation was made, has been so far modified that, he can now introduce his explanation if made when his possession was challenged, or when he was charged with the theft.</p> <p>3.' Same.—To state the rule in another form: To be admissible, the party must be in possession of the property, or the explanation must be made when he is arrested for the theft, or when he is charged with it, or informed,that he is suspected of it.</p> <p>3. Same.—Another rule upon the subject, to be borne in mind, is that the explanatiqn must be made when the party is first directly or circumstantially called upon to explain. Note the opinion for explanation properly excluded under the rules quoted.</p> <p>4. Same.—Notwithstanding the rules cited, and the failure of a defendant to explain his possession of, or connection with, the stolen property, when he was arrested for the-offense, he was not deprived thereby of his right to prove that his connection with the stolen property was an innocent, and not a guilty one. Nor was it incumbent on him to establish an innocent connection by a preponderance of evidence. Evidence sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt upon the question of guilty connection would' entitle him to an acquittal.</p> <p>5. Same—Pact Case—Evidence.—See evidence held insufficient to sustain , a conviction for theft of cattle.</p>