Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Judges

TOM BALDWIN v. THE STATE.

1. Theft — Charge of Court — Explanation of Recent Possession.— On a trial for theft, where the evidence shows that defendant neither gave nor attempted to give any explanation of his recent possession of the stolen property, it was proper and right that the court should refuse to charge with reference to that subject.

2. Same — Circumstantial Evidence.— On a trial for theft, where no eye-witness testified directly to the taking, but the criminative facts established are in juxtaposition to the main fact, the court properly refused to charge the law of circumstantial evidence.

DAVIDSON, JUDGE.

Appellant prosecutes this appeal from a conviction for hog theft. In his motion for new trial he criticises the charge in several respects.

Applied to the evidence adduced, the charge is sufficient. A charge on the law in relation to reasonable account of possession of property recently stolen was not called for by the evidence, because none was given, nor does the testimony before us show, on the part of defendant, any theory of honest ownership in or right to the hogs, nor did he claim them to be the property of his relatives, or that he so believed. He gave no account of his possession.

The failure of the court to charge the jury in relation to the law of circumstantial evidence, if error at all, is not of sufficient importance to require a reversal. The missing hogs were tracked a short distance from the place at which they were taken, and discovered in the possession of defendant and his brother, who were driving them, and who drove them on home and butchered them. While no witness saw defendant actually take possession of the hogs, yet the criminative circumstances are in such "juxtaposition to the main fact" that the omission to give the charge was not calculated to injure defendant's rights. Montgomery v. The State, 20 S.W. Rep., 926. The issues of the case were properly submitted by the court in the charge given. The evidence is cogent, and sustains the conviction. The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Simkins, J., absent.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

BALDWIN v. THE STATE
(Mar 18, 1893)