Florez v. State

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: White
• Citation: Florez v. State, 9 S.W. 772, 26 Tex. App. 481 (Tex. App. 1888)
• Decision Date: 21 November 1888
• Parties: FLOREZ v. STATE.

9 S.W. 772

FLOREZ v. STATE.

Court of Appeals of Texas.

November 21, 1888.

Appeal from district court, Duval county; J. C. RUSSELL, Judge.

Pablo Florez was indicted for the theft of a mule. Defendant was convicted, and appeals.

Asst. Atty. Gen. Davidson, for the State.

WHITE, P. J.

When missed by the owner, in November, 1884, the mule was a little over a year old. When recovered in April, 1887, it was four years' old. Defendant's bill of sale, under which he claimed to have acquired possession of the mule, is dated October 15, 1885. Prior to this latter date there is no evidence showing any connection, of any kind whatever, on the part of the defendant with the mule. There is no evidence showing who took the mule in 1884, 11 months before defendant was first seen in possession of it, if, indeed, the animal of which he acquired possession ostensibly, by means of the bill of sale, was the alleged stolen animal. This possession of the defendant, then, is the main circumstance upon which the prosecution relies to establish that defendant took or stole the mule 11 months prior thereto. Possession of property, to raise a presumption of guilt, must be recent. Remote possession of property of this character, which readily passes from one person to another, does not raise a presumption of guilt. It is but a circumstance stronger or weaker, in proportion to its remoteness from the original taking. It was a question in this case as to whether the facts established a case of recent possession or not, and this question of recent possession should have been submitted to the jury under...