Thompson v. State

Citations

• 43 Tex. 268

Syllabus

<p>1. Grand larceny—Indictment.—In an indictment for theft of several articles of the aggregate value of over twenty dollars, it is sufficient to allege such aggregate value. It is not necessary that the separate value of each article be set out.</p> <p>2. Same—Evidence.—But to convict upon such indictment, the testimony must show the theft of all the articles alleged to have been stolen.</p> <p>3. Recent possession of stolen property.—It is error to charge the jury that mere possession of property recently stolen is prima facie evidence of theft, which devolves upon the defendant the necessity of explaining such possession.</p> <p>4. Same.—The rule in such case is, that the possession of property recently stolen is evidence against the accused, which is to be taken and considered by the jury in connection with the other testimony in the case.</p> <p>5. Same—Claim by defendant of right to property stolen.— Where there is evidence that the accused set up claim to property for the theft of which he is upon trial, the intent of the taking by the defendant should be submitted to the jury by the charge of the court.</p> <p>6. Argument of counsel should be restricted to -a discussion of the facts of the case and the conclusions legitimately deducible from the law applicable to them.</p>