Henley v. State

5 Citing cases

  1. Washington v. State

    554 P.2d 819 (Okla. Crim. App. 1976)   Cited 2 times

    Although such evidence is insufficient to make one guilty of burglary, it is a circumstance that can be considered by the jury, providing there is additional testimony even though slight to show supporting facts or circumstances to connect the defendant with the original breaking and entering. See, Henley v. State, Okla. Cr. 371 P.2d 928 (1962).

  2. Cheatham v. State

    483 P.2d 1172 (Okla. Crim. App. 1971)   Cited 15 times

    This Court has consistently held that mere possession of recently stolen property is insufficient to authorize conviction for burglary, but it is a circumstance to be taken into consideration by the jury, providing there is additional evidence to connect the defendant with the original breaking and entering. Lefthand v. State, Okla. Cr. 398 P.2d 98; Meekins v. State, Okla. Cr. 420 P.2d 267, and Henley v. State, Okla. Cr. 371 P.2d 928. We are of the opinion that the evidence placing the defendants directly across from the burglarized building, together with possession of stolen property, is sufficient to connect them with the actual breaking and entering.

  3. Garruba v. State

    473 P.2d 317 (Okla. Crim. App. 1970)   Cited 3 times

    "`Steal' as the word is used in the burglary statute * * * is an offense of such character that it is burglary to break and enter with intent to steal, without regard to the value of the property sought to be taken." See also Henley v. State, Okla. Cr. 371 P.2d 928. As to the proof necessary to show that the automobile was broken into within the meaning of the statute defining burglary, this Court, speaking through the Honorable Judge Chappel in the case of Yeargin v. State, 54 Okla. Cr. 34, 14 P.2d 431, had this to say:

  4. Linebarger v. State

    420 P.2d 918 (Okla. Crim. App. 1966)   Cited 2 times

    Both direct and circumstantial evidence were introduced by the State. This Court reiterated the rule in Henley v. State, Okla. Cr. 371 P.2d 928, 930: "The Court of Criminal Appeals will not reverse a case for insufficiency of the evidence unless it can say after a study of all the evidence, that there was no substantial evidence in the record upon which the verdict could be based."

  5. Nichols v. State

    418 P.2d 77 (Okla. Crim. App. 1966)   Cited 22 times

    Defendant's third proposition is: "The verdict is not sustained by the evidence; and the court erred in overruling the defendant's request for an instructed verdict of not guilty, and in giving to the jury instruction No. 8." This Court has long adhered to the rule restated in Henley v. State, Okla. Cr. 371 P.2d 928: "Court of Criminal Appeals will not reverse conviction on ground of insufficiency of evidence, unless court can say, after study of all evidence, that there was no substantial evidence in record on which verdict could be based."