Case ID: sw_153/html/0127-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HARPER, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

FENNELL v. STATE.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Jan. 8, 1913.
    Rehearing Denied Feb. 5, 1913.)
    Larceny (§ 78) — Sufficiency of Instruction.
    An instruction that if accused purchased property claimed to have been stolen by him, or the jury had reasonable doubt thereof, they should acquit, fully presented his defense embodied in his testimony that he purchased the property from another.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Larceny, Cent. Dig. § 182; Dec. Dig. § 78.]
    Appeal from District Court, Bexar Coum ty; Edward Dwyer, Judge.
    L. Fennell was convicted of theft, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    L. W. Greenly, of San Antonio, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes
    
   HARPER, J.

Appellant was prosecuted and convicted of theft, and his punishment assessed at five years’ confinement in the state penitentiary.

The evidence amply supports the verdict of the jury, and there is no merit in the contention that it is insufficient, and it was not necessary for the court to charge on explanation of the possession of the recently stolen property. The first explanation given was a confession of his guilt, which confession was properly admitted in evidence. The facts not only would justify the finding that it was freely and voluntarily made, but a portion of the stolen property was found at the place stated by appellant in his confession. While it is true that, after having confessed to himself stealing the property, on the trial of the case defendant testified he had-purchased the property from another person, whose name he could not recall, but whom he stated he would know if he should see him again. The court instructed the jury that if defendant purchased the property, or the jury had a reasonable doubt of that fact, to acquit him. This fully presented his defense, and the motion for a new trial points out no error.

The judgment is affirmed.