Garcia v. State
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Bexar. Tried below before the Hon. Thomas H. Stribling. The appellant and one Achilles Deal were indicted for the theft ■of two mules, the property of Alfred M. Rowlett. A verdict of guilty being found, the defendant moved for a new trial, which was refused. Thereupon, he moved in arrest of judgment, assigning for cause, that “ the indictment does not allege the property in the possession of any one at the time it was taken.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from Bexar. Tried below before the Hon. Thomas H. Stribling. The appellant and one Achilles Deal were indicted for the theft ■of two mules, the property of Alfred M. Rowlett. A verdict of guilty being found, the defendant moved for a new trial, which was refused. Thereupon, he moved in arrest of judgment, assigning for cause, that “ the indictment does not allege the property in the possession of any one at the time it was taken.” This motion also was overruled, and the defendant sentenced, according to the finding of the jury, to five years in the Penitentiary.
1Opinion of the CourtMoore, J.
—The taking of the property %oithont the consent of the owner, is an essential ingredient of the offence, for which the appellant is indicted. And unless this is proved, we cannot infer that any offence has been committed. Possession of stolen property, especially if recently after the commission of the theft, has always been regarded as presumptive evidence of the guilt of the possessor. But it has never been held that the mere possession of property is evidence of its caption and asportation without the owner’s consent. Although the agent of the owner was examined as a witness, it does not…
2Cited by20 opinions
- Leslie v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1895
- State v. SlusherSupreme Court of Missouri · 1923
- State v. RussoSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1928
- Albritton v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1921
- Shepherd v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1884
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.