Although unexplained personal possession of recently stolen property creates a presumption of guilt sufficient to sustain a conviction for theft, under TEX.PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.03(b)(1) (Vernon 1989), no such presumption arises when the offense is theft by receiving. Hynson v. State, 656 S.W.2d 460, 461 (Tex.Crim.App. 1983); Tuck v. State, 722 S.W.2d 34, 35 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1986, no pet.). Rather, possession is a circumstance to be considered, along with other relevant circumstances, in drawing an inference that an accused knew the property was stolen by another.
The essential elements of theft by receiving are: (1) that a theft occurred by another person; (2) the defendant received the stolen property; and (3) when the defendant received the stolen property she knew it was stolen. Dennis v. State, 647 S.W.2d 275, 280 (Tex.Crim.App. 1983); TEX.PENAL CODE ANN. Sec. 31.03(a), (b)(2) (Vernon 1989). Under the statute and the indictment, the State had the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that appellant had actual subjective knowledge that the speakers were stolen. Dennis, 647 S.W.2d at 280; Tuck v. State, 722 S.W.2d 34, 36 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1986, no pet.). The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, shows: