Sikes v. State

It is well settled that recent possession of stolen goods unexplained will justify a conviction for larceny. The recency of the possession and the- explanation of the defendant of his possession are, as a general rule, questions to be considered by the jury. The evidence in the present case comes within this general rule, and this court cannot hold that the verdict is without evidence to support it.

The overruling of a ground of a motion for new trial based upon alleged newly discovered testimony will not be reversed when such testimony is merely cumulative, and it further appears that by the…