SHULMAN, Presiding Judge.
Appellant brings this appeal from his conviction of burglary. In two enumerations of error, appellant attacks the sufficiency of the evidence, basing his attack primarily on the use of the rule that proof of recent possession of goods stolen in a burglary without a reasonable explanation thereof will authorize a conviction of burglary.
Although the evidence against appellant was not so strong as that in the case of Humes v. State...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
