Bean v. State
| Decision Date | 19 October 1887 |
| Citation | 5 S.W. 525 |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
| Parties | BEAN <I>alias</I> WHITE v. STATE. |
Appeal from district court, McLennan county; EUGENE WILLIAMS, Judge.
This conviction was for the larceny of a mare, and the penalty assessed against the appellant was a term of five years in the penitentiary.
Jenkins & Jenkins and Clark, Dyer & Bolinger, for appellant. Asst. Atty. Gen. Davidson, for the State.
About September 10, 1885, William Little's mare was stolen from him in Bell county, Texas. Eleven months thereafter, to-wit, about August 27, 1886, she was in the possession of the defendant, in McLennan county, who then and there, under the name of White, traded her to one Turner. The above recited circumstances constitute the evidence upon which this conviction is founded. There is not another particle of criminative evidence in the record before us. On the contrary, the state, by one of her own witnesses, proved that in August, 1886, the defendant purchased said mare, and the testimony of this witness went before the jury uncontradicted by any other evidence adduced on the trial.
As presented to us the conviction is unsupported by the evidence. Defendant's possession of the mare cannot be said to be recent, and can therefore, at most, afford but slight ground for the presumption of guilt against him. His possession, however, was explained and accounted for by the state's testimony, and shown to be a lawful one; and such being the case, although his possession might have been recent, it would not have afforded a legal presumption of guilt. Lehman v. State, 18 Tex. App. 174; Tucker v. State, 16 Tex. App. 471; Norwood v. State, 20 Tex. App. 306.
Because the judgment is unsupported by the evidence, it is reversed, and the cause is remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Moore
... ... doubt be raised in the minds of the jury by the ... defendant's explanation of his possession of recently ... stolen property. If the explanation is reasonable in itself, ... then the state must, in some other way, contradict the ... explanation, or the jury must acquit. Bean v. State, ... 5 S.W. 525; State v. Warden, 94 Mo. 648; Smith ... v. State, 6 S.W. 40; Young v. State, 3 South ... Rep. 881; State v. Manley, 38 N.W. 415; Greenl ... Ev., sec. 32; People v. Flyn, 15 P. 102. (6) The ... court's seventh instruction should not have been given so ... ...
- Tibbs v. State
-
Sutherlin v. State
...of law. Yates v. State, 37 Tex.Rep. 202 (Tex.Sup.Ct.1873); Bragg v. State, 17 Tex.App. 219 (Tex.Ct.App.1884); Bean v. State, 24 Tex.App. 11, 5 S.W. 525 (Tex.Ct.App.1887); Menchaca v. State, 58 Tex.Cr.R. 198, 125 S.W. 20 (Tex.Cr.App.1910); Preston v. State, 178 S.W.2d 522 In this instance, b......
-
Preston v. State
... ... Fifteen months is not "recently". See Yates v. State, 37 Tex. 202 (Bed-clothing— five months); Bragg v. State, 17 Tex.App. 219, 221 (Horse—five and one-half months); Bean v. State, 24 Tex.App. 11, 5 S.W. 525 (Mare—eleven months); Tolliver v. State, 25 Tex.App. 600, 8 S.W. 806 (Coat—one year); Flores v. State, 26 Tex.App. 477, 9 S.W. 772 (Mule—eleven months); Menchaca v. State, 58 Tex.Cr.R. 198, 125 S.W. 20 (Jewelry—three and one-half months) ... ...