Richardson v. State

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

HAWKINS, Judge.

We are unable to agree with appellant

in his renewed contention that the property found in his possession was not sufficiently identified as that taken from the burglarized premises. That stolen property may be identified circumstantially as well as by direct testimony is not to be questioned. Burgess v. State, 107 Tex. Crim. Rep. 90, 296 S. W. 318. In Sec. 2482, Branch’s Ann. Tex. P. C., is found this language: ■ y|||'jj

“The state may trace by positive or circumstantial evidence the property alleged to have been stolen, and whether the property shown to…