Court Opinion

ID: 9767788
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:27:02.549263+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:33.035906
License: Public Domain

on appellant’s motion for rehearing
DAVIDSON, Judge.
By motion for rehearing, supported by able oral presentation, appellant insists that we were in error in holding that the trial court did not err in failing to instruct the jury as pointed out in the original opinion.
Appellant’s guilt is made to depend upon the circumstance of his possession of the recently stolen cow.
He admitted that at one time he had possession of the stolen cow and that he sold her to Hargrove, in whose possession the cow was found and identified by the owner. Appellant explained his possession of the cow by saying that he purchased her from one Byers. Byers denied such purchase.
In addition to the defense of purchase, appellant presented the defense of an alibi by testimony to the effect that he was at another and different place when the theft occurred.
The trial court submitted both of these affirmative defenses to the jury and as to the defense of purchase, instructed the jury that if they entertained a reasonable doubt that he purchased the cow from Byers to acquit him.
We remain convinced that, under the testimony, the charge of the court fully protected appellant’s rights.
Appellant insists that the holding in Thornton v. State, 136 Tex. Cr. R. 560, 127 S. W. 2d 197, supports his contention.
The Thornton case was reversed because of a failure to charge upon circumstantial evidence. Here, the trial court charged upon that phase of the law. We are unable to conclude that the Thornton case is here controlling.
*369The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion approved by the court.