Case ID: sw_257/html/0883-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LATTIMORÉ, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

COBB v. STATE.
    (No. 8177.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Tesas.
    Jan. 16, 1924.)
    Burglary <&wkey;42(l) — Proof of defendant’s unexplained possession of a part of the stolen property held to sustain conviction.
    In prosecution for burglary, testimony that a part of the stolen property was found in defendant’s possession helé to sustain conviction, in view of defendant’s failure to rebut the fact of such possession, or to explain possession.
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Dallas County; Felix D. Robertson, Judge.
    Bill Cobb was convicted of burglary, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Shelby S. Cox, Crim. Dist. Atty., of Dallas, Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., of Midland, and Grover C. .Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., of Devine, for the State.
   LATTIMORÉ, J.

Appellant was c<pnvict-ed in the criminal district court of Dallas county of the offense of burglary, and his punishment fixed at three years in the penitentiary.

There is no bill of exceptions in the record. The statement of facts shows beyond question a burglarious entry of a house and the taking therefrom of property. A ring belonging to the owner, and which was part of the loot of the burglary, was later found in possession of the appellant. No testimony appears to have been offered on his behalf, and no explanation was made of his possession of the alleged stolen property, and the fact of such possession is not in any way rebutted. We deem the evidence sufficient to justify the conclusion of guilt arrived at by the jury.

Finding no error in the record, an affirmance will be ordered.