Court Opinion

ID: 9779270
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:42:02.888485+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:24.581327
License: Public Domain

ROBERTS, Judge
(dissenting).
I dissent. The majority uphold the sufficiency of the evidence to support this conviction, despite the testimony of the “victim” who could not even establish that the bedspreads were, in fact, stolen.
It is well-recognized that when possession of recently stolen property is relied upon for conviction, it must be established that the property possessed by the accused is the identical property taken from the burglarized place. See Nelson v. State, 505 S.W.2d 271 (Tex.Cr.App. 1974) at footnote # 1; and Reyes v. State, 468 S.W.2d 64 (Tex.Cr.App.1971) and cases there cited. It is not a sufficient identification to show only that the goods are of the same brand as those which were stolen. See Nichols v. State, 479 S.W.2d 277 (Tex.Cr. App.1972) and cases there cited.
*44In the instant case, the witness Lane could do no more than state that these bedspreads were of the same brand as those in the warehouse. He was unable to state that the articles were taken on the occasion alleged (see Reyes v. State, supra), the number of spreads, if any, taken, and was unable even to state that these items were stolen.
There is a total absence of evidence that the bedspreads found in appellant’s possession were the same as those identified by the witness Lane (see Nichols v. State, supra), and, even assuming that the bedspreads identified by Lane were those taken from appellant, there is no showing that they were the same spreads allegedly taken from the warehouse.
Based on the holdings of the above-cited cases, one can only conclude that the evidence was insufficient to support this conviction. For the reasons stated, I dissent.