Court Opinion

ID: 9666078
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:04:16.006735+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:23.389437
License: Public Domain

*522ON PETITION TO REHEAR
Dwyer, J.
There has been a petition to rehear filed in this cause.
The petitioner is much aggrieved with our treatment of his assignment of error pertaining to the charge as given by the trial court; that is, the law if personal property is shown recently to have been stolen and if found in the possession of one, when unexplained, raises a legal presumption of guilt on the part of the person in whose possession the goods are found; and if it be in the power of the accused to explain the possession and he fails to do so, the fact would intensify and make the evidence tending to establish guilty possession stronger.
He cites Thomas v. State, 225 Tenn. 71, 463 S.W.2d 687, 688, and urges reversal as this opinion clearly makes such a charge an incorrect statement of the law. With this contention of petitioner we do not agree. In Thomas v. State, supra, the charge under attack in that case was, in substance, the same as given in the instant case. At page 689 the following may be found:
“While ive are not prepared to depart from our own rule a sense of justice compels us in a case like this ivhere there are no other facts or circumstances in any way connecting defendant with the crime, and lapse of time between the larceny and its being found in the possession of defendant is somewhat extended to require the case to be retried with some explanation to the jury as to the meaning of the term ‘recent’.” (emphasis added)
*523In the instant ease, as related in the opinion, within a few days defendant was seen in possession of the stolen articles.
We see no reason to change our treatment of this assignment.
The rest of this somewhat lengthy petition to rehear is reargument of facts and matters treated in our original opinion. We find nothing new in this rehash of these matters which Avould cause us to reconsider our opinion.
The petition to rehear is denied.
Mitchell and O’Brien, JJ., concur.