Yates v. State

Citations

• 37 Tex. 202

Syllabus

<p>1. On a trial for theft, the court below instructed the jury that when “ prop- “ erty recently stolen is found in the possession of a person, the law “ presumes that person to be the thief, and such person must rebut the “ presumption by proof, such as having bought the property in a public “ manner.” This is held to be erroneous. The possession of stolen property is merely a circumstance to be submitted to the jury in connection with other evidence of guilt, and is not sufficient of itself to justify a verdict of guilty. Held further, that the latter part of the charge, directing the jury that it was incumbent on the accused to rebut the presumption of guilt by proof of having bought the goods in a public manner, is erroneous; a purchase in good faith at private sale would protect the accused as amply as a public purchase.</p> <p>2. The possession of stolen property five months after the theft, is not sufficiently recent to raise the presumption that the party in possession of the goods is the thief.</p>