Court Opinion

ID: 9451811
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:24:27.555123+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:53.805111
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM:
Appellant was convicted of housebreaking and larceny. His principal contention on appeal, ably presented by counsel we appointed to present the appeal, is that the instructions to the jury did not adequately include appellant’s theory of the case, based on his intoxicated condition when arrested with several of the stolen articles in his own pockets. His position is that he did not know what he had in his pockets and that the articles were planted on him by a companion in the car with him at the time.
Trial counsel did not clearly articulate to the trial court the instruction desired. In view of this and the strength of the evidence of appellant’s guilt, coupled with the instructions as given, which left to the jury the issue whether the possession of the articles was innocent, we think reversal is not justified.
Affirmed.