Frazier v. the State

8 Citing cases

  1. Gill v. State

    873 S.W.2d 45 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994)   Cited 230 times
    Holding that possession of property taken in crime was some evidence that tended to connect defendant to crime

    ' 5 Branch's Ann.P.C., Sec. 2650, and cases collected. See also Frazier, 98 Tex.Crim. 411, 227 S.W. 324."Id., at 555.

  2. Mcknight v. State

    399 S.W.2d 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 1966)   Cited 29 times
    Holding evidence insufficient where defendant had access to garage where stolen property was stored and no other evidence connected defendant to the stolen property

    ' 5 Branch's Ann.P.C., Sec. 2650, and cases collected. See also Frazier v. State, 88 Tex.Crim. 411, 227 S.W. 324. Discounting the accomplice witness' testimony, there is no evidence that appellant had any connection with, control of, or possession of either the stolen property when it was found or the building in which it was found.

  3. Rose v. State

    240 Md. 65 (Md. 1965)   Cited 17 times

    "The possessor of stolen goods soon after the theft must give a reasonable explanation of how he came into possession or face the inference that he is the thief." Counsel for the appellant seeks to distinguish the case at bar from the general rule by arguing that Rose's possession of the stolen objects was not exclusive, but the objects were in the possession of two persons without evidence of concert of action between them, relying on Frazier v. State of Texas, 88 Tex.Crim. 411, 227 S.W. 324 (1921) and 52 C.J.S. Larceny, Sec. 107 at page 929, to indicate that under these circumstances the general rule does not apply. In our opinion, Mrs. Meekins' testimony could reasonably be taken by the trial court to indicate that Rose had the exclusive possession of the stolen objects.

  4. Bronstad v. State

    126 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1939)

    The impression made upon the accused is to be taken into account. We quote from the language of Judge Davidson, in Buddy v. State, 227 S.W. 324, as follows: "One of the questions presented is that during the day of the 26th the justice of the peace sent for appellant. Appellant went to his office, and was there questioned with reference to this transaction, and his statement seems to have been reduced to writing.

  5. Prather v. State

    81 S.W.2d 528 (Tex. Crim. App. 1935)   Cited 9 times

    In support of the views herein expressed we refer to the case of Russell v. State, 218 S.W. 1049, in which this court, speaking through Judge Morrow, said: "There are no circumstances other than the evidence of possession which we have quoted, and the fact that there were pistols and flashlights found on the premises, which tend to connect the appellant with the burglary; there are no declarations, no disclaimer of guilt by Yell, who was shown by the state's evidence to have been an occupant of the house with opportunity equal to that of the appellant." In the case of Frazier v. State, 227 S.W. 324, this court, speaking through Judge Lattimore, said: "Without discussing the question of the sufficiency of the identification of the alleged stolen property, it seems from the record that, at the house in whose yard the witness * * * said he found the dead hogs, there were four people, none of whom claimed to own the hogs or have same in their possession. Possession appears to be the only circumstance of guilt, and in order to justify such inference the possession must not only be shown to be recent and unexplained, but also personal and exclusive in the party or parties sought to be charged thereby.

  6. Walker v. State

    291 S.W. 228 (Tex. Crim. App. 1927)   Cited 2 times

    Marcus Schwartz of Hallettsville, for appellant. On possession of recently stolen property, appellant cites: Lemon v. State, 231 S.W. 388; Frazier v. State, 227 S.W. 324; Russell v. State, 218 S.W. 1049; Lehman v. State, 18 Tex.Crim. App. 174; Casas v. State, 12 Tex.Crim. App. 59; Robinson v. State, 22 Tex.Crim. App. 690. Sam D. Stinson, State's Attorney, and Robert M. Lyles, Assistant State's Attorney, for the State.

  7. James v. State

    99 Tex. Crim. 395 (Tex. Crim. App. 1925)   Cited 2 times

    See Art. 929, C. C. P., also Art. 931; Vernon's Texas Crim. Stat., Vol. 2, p. 891, note 13; Mitchell v. State, 1 Texas Crim. App. 725; Gould v. State, 153 S.W. Rep. 326; Lord v. State, 73 Tex.Crim. Rep.; Frazier v. State, 227 S.W. Rep. 324; Washington v. State, 86 Tex. Crim. 327. However, no fee should be allowed the clerk of the trial court for the preparation of a defective transcript.

  8. Louis v. State

    159 S.W.3d 236 (Tex. App. 2005)   Cited 22 times
    Holding a permissive inference of possession rational because appellant was virtually sitting on the stolen items

    As the majority notes, from our quote in Rogers v. State, 929 S.W.2d 103, 108 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1996, no pet.), in order to rely on Hardesty's "permissible inference," the actor must have been in "personal possession" of the stolen property at some point. An early case, Frazier v. State, 88 Tex.Crim. 411, 227 S.W. 324 (1921), involved the identity of the thief of some hogs. The evidence in Frazier indicated the stolen hogs were apparently found dead lying in the front yard of the residence of the defendant's mother.