York v. State

Citations

• 17 Tex. Ct. App. 441
• 1885 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 10

Syllabus

<p>1. Theft.— Possession of Recently Stolen Property is but presumptive evidence against a party accused of theft, and is stronger or weaker according to the circumstances attending it. Any reasonable explanation made of such possession, by the party accused, when his right to the property is first questioned, is admissible for him; and, if not shown to be false, rebuts the presumption against him arising from the fact of possession, and necessitates further evidence of his guilt before a conviction is warranted by law.</p> <p>2, Same—Fact Case.— See the opinion in extenso for evidence held insufficient to sustain a conviction for horse theft, inasmuch as the State, relying alone upon the accused’s possession of the animal recently stolen, failed to prove the falsity of the reasonable explanation given by him when his right was first questioned.</p>