Case ID: tex-ct-app_23/html/0182-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "White, Presiding Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 2283.
    Allen Shuler v. The State.
    Burglary and Theft—Case Stated—Charge of the Court.—Appellant was tried for burglary and the theft of certain oats which were found in the possession of one Bond, which oats the said Bond, in appellant’s presence, claimed to have purchased; and there was evidence in support of this claim of Bond’s. Held that the trial court, in its charge to the jury, should have affirmatively and pertinently expounded the law both as to opportune explanation of the possession of recently stolen property and as to the defense of parchase of the property, as claimed by Bond, who was jointly indicted with this appellant for the offense. (See Bond’s case, ante, 180.)
    Appeal from the District Court of Gonzales. Tried below before the Hon. George McCormick.
    This is a companion case to that of Charles Bond v. The State, next preceding. The punishment assessed against this appellant was two years in the penitentiary.
    
      Ponton & Fly, for the appellant.
    
      Walter Weaver, for the State.
   White, Presiding Judge.

This is a companion case to Bond v. The State, just decided—both appellants having been jointly indicted for the same burglary and theft of oats. The alleged stolen property was found on the premises and in the possession of Bond, and appellant made no claim of any kind to it. His guilty connection, if any, with the property arose from the fact that he was a principal who acted in connection with Bond in the perpetration of the burglary.

When the oats were found in Bond’s possession he, Bond, in presence of defendant, claimed that he had purchased the oats. Under the circumstances, situated as he was, the defendant was entitled to the benefit of any explanation of possession made by his codefendant Bond, in his presence. Such being the state of the evidence, the court should in this case have instructed the jury with regard to the law, both as to reasonable explanation of possession of property recently stolen, and also the law with regard to a purchase of the property as claimed by Bond.

Opinion delivered March 9, 1887.

For error in the charge of the court by failing to submit pertinently and affirmatively the la^ applicable to the material issues of the defense, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.