Howington v. State

Hall, Judge.

1. This evidence does not present a case in which the defendant’s guilt was wholly dependent upon the inference arising from the defendant’s possession of the stolen property shortly after the larceny, and the possession, as a matter of law, was explained by unimpeached, uncontradicted and undiscredited testimony, and there was no circumstance to supply a reason why the jury did not believe the explanation of possession offered by the defendant. The conflict between the defendant’s first statement that he acquired the property from unknown persons whom he had never seen before,…