Case ID: sw_249/html/0466-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LATTIMORE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

THOLEN v. STATE.
    (No. 7555.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 21, 1923.)
    Larceny (§=64(7) — Evidence held to support conviction of theft of automobile.
    In a prosecution for theft of an automobile, the fact that the automobile was found in defendant’s possession shortly after it was lost, and other evidence, held to support a conviction.
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Harris County; C. W. Robinson, Judge.
    Herman Tholen, alias Jack Tholen, was convicted of theft of an automobile, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    J. S. McConnell and Fred L. Perkins, both of Houston, for appellant.
    R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

Appellant was convicted in the criminal district court of Harris county of the theft of an automobile, and his punishment fixed at two years in the penitentiary.

Shortly after the loss of the car in question in Humble, Harris .county, Tex., it was found in possession of appellant at Wills Point, Van Eandt county, a distance of approximately 350 miles from Humble. Appellant claimed that he bought the car from one Tom'Martin. The numbers on the car had been changed when it was found in appellant’s possession. There is no complaint of the charge of the trial court, and no exceptions were reserved to anything that transpired, during the- trial. A special charge asked was refused, but there is nothing in the record showing that such refusal was excepted to.

It seems to have been uniformly held that the recent possession of stolen property by the accused will suffice to uphold conviction. In this case the appellant and his witnesses made out a ease of purchase of the alleged stolen car from one Tom Martin. Appellant admitted that he had made no effort to procure Martin’s presence as a witness or to locate him. No witness was produced who knew or had ever seen Martin - except those who testified they attested the bill of sale which was introduced in evidence by appellant as given him by Martin at the time he bought said car. The car was taken at night. A witness testified that he saw appellant on the street that night in the vicinity of the car. This was denied by appellant. Other contradictions appear. The court fully submitted the defensive theories of the purchase of the car and of alibi. Being fully informed ■ as to the law of the ease, the jury have weighed the conflicting testimony and de-eided the issues against appellant. We are not able to say that there is no testimony in this record fairly supporting their conclusion.

The judgment will be affirmed.