
    FALCONE v. STATE.
    (No. 5211.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 27, 1918.)
    Receiving Stolen Goods <@=3 — Reception Without Knowledge oe Theft — Subsequent Knowledge.
    Defendant, who received jewelry without knowing it was stolen, but, after learning the fact, concealed it was guilty of receiving stolen property.
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Travis County; James R. Hamilton, Judge.
    Vincent Falcone was convicted of receiving stolen property, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    E. B. Hendricks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   DAVIDSON, P. J.

Appellant was convicted of receiving stolen property; his punishment being assessed at four years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

The evidence discloses that Otto Best, Roberta Armstrong, and Alberta Robinson burglarized a house belonging to Mrs. Hannah Melasky, and took from it valuable jewelry, alleged in the indictment to be worth $675, and that after this was done appellant received it from Frank Kyle and concealed it. The evidence is sufficient to support the finding of the jury that the property was taken from Mrs. Hannah Melasky’s house, and received and turned over to Kyle, who in turn passed it to appellant, and received money as a consideration for the reception of this jewelry. The jewelry stolen was mainly diamonds in one form or another.

It is contended that appellant, at the time he received it, did not know it was stolen. Such was appellant’s testimony; he being the only witness who testified in his own behalf. But -the evidence shows that after he received -the property, although under his testimony he may not have known it was stolen at the time he received it, he concealed it knowing that fact. We are of opinion •that this sufficiently makes out a case to justify the verdict of the jury. There are no bills of exception to any ruling or action of the court, either as to the admission or rejection of testimony, or charges given. As this record presents the matter, we are of opinion that the state has sufficiently made out a case to justify the conviction.

The judgment is therefore affirmed. 
      ®=3For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     