Romero v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Romero v. State

8 S.W. 641, 25 Tex. Ct. App. 394, 1888 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 67

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedMay 2, 1888

DocketNo. 5890

StatusPublished

This text of 8 S.W. 641 (Romero v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Romero v. State, 8 S.W. 641, 25 Tex. Ct. App. 394, 1888 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 67 (Tex. Ct. App. 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

White, Presiding Judge.

When last seen by the alleged owner, the animal charged to have been stolen “was at Pope’s Lake in this (Atascosa) county, on a horse round up in the spring of 1883.” He next saw and found it in the possession of Julio Perez in 1886. Perez testified that he bought the animal from defendant in May, 1886. So that, so far as the evidence goes, from the time the animal was lost or taken from the owner until it was first known to be in defendant’s possession, was a period of three years. There is no evidence tending to connect defendant with the original taking of the animal, and no explanation as to his possession was made by him when he sold it to Perez.

The conviction rests solely upon defendant’s possession and sale of the animal in 1886, three years after it was stolen. “Possession of property, to raise a presumption of guilt, must be recent.” (Beck v. The State, 44 Texas, 430; Bragg v. The State, 17 Texas Ct. App., 219; Lehman v. The State, 18 Texas Ct. App., 174; Curlin v. The State, 23 Texas Ct. App., 681; Boyd v. The State, 24 Texas Ct. App., 570.)

We are of opinion the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction, and the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

White, Presiding Judge.

When last seen by the alleged owner, the animal charged to have been stolen “was at Pope’s Lake in this (Atascosa) county, on a horse round up in the spring of 1883.” He next saw and found it in the possession of Julio Perez in 1886. Perez testified that he bought the animal from defendant in May, 1886. So that, so far as the evidence goes, from the time the animal was lost or taken from the owner until it was first known to be in defendant’s possession, was a period of three years. There is no evidence tending to connect defendant with the original taking of the animal, and no explanation as to his possession was made by him when he sold it to Perez.

The conviction rests solely upon defendant’s possession and sale of the animal in 1886, three years after it was stolen. “Possession of property, to raise a presumption of guilt, must be recent.” (Beck v. The State, 44 Texas, 430; Bragg v. The State, 17 Texas Ct. App., 219; Lehman v. The State, 18 Texas Ct. App., 174; Curlin v. The State, 23 Texas Ct. App., 681; Boyd v. The State, 24 Texas Ct. App., 570.)

We are of opinion the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction, and the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 S.W. 641, 25 Tex. Ct. App. 394, 1888 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 67, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/romero-v-state-texapp-1888.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack