Case Name: O'FALLIN v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1914-06-24
Citations: 169 S.W. 897
Docket Number: No. 3182
Parties: O’FALLIN v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 169
Pages: 897–899

Head Matter:
O’FALLIN v. STATE.
(No. 3182.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
June 24, 1914.
On Motion for Rehearing, Oct. 21, 1914.)
1. Criminal Law (§ 958 ) — New Trial — Grounds — Newly Discovered Evidence.
Where, in a prosecution for burglary, a shirt worn by accused and identified as having been taken from the burglarized house was used to connect him with the burglary, an application for a new trial on the ground that accused could prove by his mother that the shirt had been used by him prior to the burglary, not verified by the mother’s affidavit as to the fact, and not shown to have been newly discovered evidence, was properly denied.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2396-2403; Dec. Dig. § 958. ]
On Motion for Rehearing.
2. Burglary (§ 42 ) — Stolen Property — Recent Possession. ■
Where the state relies for conviction of burglary only on recent possession of stolen property by accused to connect him with the burglary, such possession must be exclusive, or possession by accused and others who may have been connected with the burglary.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Burglary, Cent. Dig. §§ 94-103, 109; Dec. Dig. § 42. ]
3. Burglary (§ 41 ) — Evidence.
Evidence field to sustain a conviction of burglary of a storehouse.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Burglary, Cent. Dig. §§ 94-103, 109; Dec. Dig. § 41. ]
Appeal from District Court, Leon County; S. W. Dean, Judge.
Ben O’Fallin was convicted, of burglary, and he appeals.
Affirmed. Rehearing overruled.
Jas. T. Ryan, of Centerville, for appellant. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
For other cases sec name topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
DAVIDSON, J.
Appellant was convicted of burglary; bis punishment being assessed at two years' confinement in the penitentiary.
The motion for new trial alleges as one of its grounds that appellant could prove by bis mother that the shirt worn by appellant and identified as taken from the burglarized bouse bad been used by him prior to the commission of the alleged burglary. There is no affidavit of the mother to that fact, nor is it shown that it was newly discovered testimony. It is simply made a ground of the motion for new trial. As thus presented, it does not come within the rule laid down for granting new trial to secure this character of testimony. He must have known long before the trial the facts set up, and, if true, they could have been shown Dy his mother.
The remaining ground of ' the motion alleges the insufficiency of the evidence. There is no direct proof that appellant broke and entered the alleged burglarized house. There is positive evidence of the fact that somebody did and carried away quite a lot of property. Appellant was found in possession of some of the stolen property, which was identified by the. alleged owners as being property taken from the burglarized house. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the evidence, though circumstantial, is sufficient to justify the verdict of the jury. Appellant was wearing a shirt, subsequent to the burglary, which was identified by the parties as having come out of their house. At the place where appellant resided, being his father's residence, there was quite a lot of this stolen property found. The brother and father of the defendant were placed upon the stand and denied having anything to do with the property or knowledge of its being there. It was secreted in the upper part, or what the witnesses called the "loft," of the house. This property was identified as coming from the burglarized house. Flight was shown, and appellant arrested on the train-leaving the county, and denied his name and identity. These are some of the circumstances of the case. As before stated, although the evidence was circumstantial, we think it fully meets the requirements of the law in cases of this character.
The judgment is affirmed.