Morgan v. State
| Decision Date | 02 June 1888 |
| Citation | 8 S.W. 487 |
| Parties | MORGAN v. STATE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from district court, Robertson county; W. E. COLLARD, Judge.
Asst. Atty. Gen. Davidson, for the state.
There is but a single question to be determined on this appeal, and that is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction. We are of opinion that it is sufficient. It was proved that a house was burglariously entered by some one, and certain property stolen therefrom. Recently thereafter the defendant was seen in possession of some property which had been so stolen, and which was positively identified as such by the owner. Defendant appropriated said property as his own by pledging it as security for a debt he owed. He made no explanation of his possession of said property at any time, and made no attempt on the trial to account for or explain when, where, how, or from whom he acquired possession of it. Prince v. State, 44 Tex. 480; Payne v. State, 21 Tex. App. 184. The judgment is affirmed.
NOTE.
BURGLARY — POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY — PRESUMPTION. Possession of property, taken at the time of the commission of a burglary, without other facts indicative of guilt, is not sufficient to support a conviction of burglary. Stewart v. People, (Mich.) 3 N. W. Rep. 863; State v. Tilton, (Iowa,) 18 N. W. Rep. 716: People v. Flynn, (Cal.) 15 Pac. Rep. 102. Though the unexplained possession of property recently stolen is prima facie evidence that the one in possession is guilty of larceny, it is not alone sufficient to sustain a conviction of burglary, State v. Shaffer, (Iowa,) 13 N. W. Rep. 306; otherwise, where it is shown that the larceny and the burglary were committed at the same time, Smith v. People, (Ill.) 3 N. E. Rep. 733; and by the same person, State v. Frahn, (Iowa,) 35 N. W. Rep. 451; State v. Rivers, (Iowa,) 27 N. W. Rep. 781. See Young v. State, (Fla.) 3 South. Rep. 881, and note, as to the presumption of guilt arising from the possession of stolen property.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blackburn v. State
...decisions this testimony has been held sufficient to sustain a verdict. Payne v. State, 21 Tex. App. 187, 17 S. W. 463; Morgan v. State, 25 Tex. App. 513, 8 S. W. 487; Rust v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. R. 77, 19 S. W. 763; Roberts v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. R. 23, 129 S. W. 611; Powers v, State, 72 Tex......
-
O'Mary v. State
...cases is held to afford not only corroboration but to be sufficient proof to sustain a verdict of guilty of burglary. Morgan v. State, 25 Tex. App. 513, 8 S. W. 487; Scott v. State, 53 Tex. Cr. R. 332, 111 S. W. 657, and cases cited in Sec. 2346, Branch's Annotated P. Objection seems to hav......
-
Reasoner v. State
...conclusion of guilt based on the above facts. See Branch's P. C. § 2346; Payne v. State, 21 Tex. App. 184, 17 S. W. 463; Morgan v. State, 25 Tex. App. 513, 8 S. W. 487. Finding no error in the record, the judgment is PER CURIAM. The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been ex......
-
Rodriguez v. State
...introduced by the state was sufficient to warrant the jury in finding the appellant guilty of burglary as charged. Morgan v. State, 25 Tex. App. 513, 8 S. W. 487; Nightengale v. State, 50 Tex. Cr. R. 3, 95 S. W. 531; Roberts v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. R. 20, 129 S. W. 611; Renois v. State, 90 Te......