Case Name: RENOIS v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1921-10-26
Citations: 234 S.W. 532
Docket Number: No. 6390
Parties: RENOIS v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 234
Pages: 532–532

Head Matter:
RENOIS v. STATE.
(No. 6390.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Oct. 26, 1921.
Rehearing Denied Nor. 23, 1821.)
1. Burglary @=>42(4) — Evidence held to sustain conviction in view of unsatisfactory explanation of possession of stolen goods.
Evidence that defendant was found in possession of and was trying to sell stolen goods held to sustain conviction, in view of unsatisfactory explanation of possession of recently stolen property.
2. Criminal law <®=>742(l)— Credibility of witnesses is matter for jury.
The credibility of witnesses is a matter for the jury.
Appeal from Criminal District Court, Tar-rant County; George E. Hosey, Judge.
Earl Renois was convicted, of burglary, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Baskin, Dodge & Bishop and Sam S. Beene, all of Eort Worth, for appellant.
R. G. Storey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Opinion:
BATTIMORE, J.
Appellant was convicted in the criminal district court of Tarrant county of burglary, and his punishment fixed at five years in the penitentiary.
The store of a Mr. Paul in Fort Worth was burglarized and entry by force, effected some time after said store was closed on Saturday night and before 2 o'clock the next afternoon, when the burglary was discovered. Three thousand dollars worth of silks, etc., were taken. The property was marked and tagged so as to be comparatively easy of identification. On Monday following, two. eartons of the missing property were found in possession of appellant, who was trying to sell same to a produce dealer in Fort Worth. No explanation of his possession of said property was then made, .nor did appellant testify on his trial. He introduced a witness who said he was present on said Monday when a man, a stranger to witness, came to appellant and told him he knew of another party who wanted to sell some silks, and that appellant could make some commission by selling same. On cross-examination this witness admitted himself to be under bond for swindling, awaiting investigation by the grand jury. The only complaint here presented by appellant in his brief is that the evidence fails to support the judgment. We regret our inability to agree to this contention. Possession of recently stolen property, without satisfactory explanation, has often been held by this court sufficient to justify conviction for theft of such property, or the burglary of premises from which same was taken. Morgan v. State, 25 Tex. App. 513, 8 S. W. 487; Nightengale v. State, 50 Ter. Cr. R. 3, 95 S. W. 531; Roberts v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. R. 20, 129 S. W. 611; Vernon's P. C. p. 847, and authorities cited.
The credibility of witnesses is a matter for the jury,- and that they saw fit to discredit appellant's witnesses, or any one of them, was within their province.
The judgment will be affirmed.
QsaFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes