Capps v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
1ConcurrenceOliver, Judge
It is always competent to show that the defendant had possession of property recently stolen from the premises he is charged with burglarizing, and such possession is evidence which may be considered, along with all the other facts and circumstances in proof, as bearing on the question whether the defendant committed the burglary. An inference of guilt is permissible from the possession of property recently stolen in a burglary, and the inference exists both as to the burglary and the stealing. Pruitt v. State, 3 Tenn.Cr.App. 256, 460 S.W.2d 385 and authorities therein cited; Wyatt v. State,…
Also in this document: Dissent.
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Pruitt v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee · 1970
- Knickerbocker v. . the PeopleNew York Court of Appeals · 1870
- Tackett v. StateTennessee Supreme Court · 1969
- The People v. ChiafreddoIllinois Supreme Court · 1942
- State v. BradySupreme Court of Iowa · 1903
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.