As a general rule one who is found in possession of recently stolen property without giving any reasonable explanation of how he came into possession of it, is presumed to be the person who stole it,48 unless the other evidence in the case, whether introduced by him or not, overcomes such presumption by raising a reasonable doubt of guilt.49

42 State vs. McCoy, 89 N. 0., 466.

See Embezzlement. 43 Adams vs. State, 45 N. J. L., 449;

People vs. Long, 50 Mich, 249;

Hughes Cr. Law, Sec. 404. 44 Dean vs. State (Fla.), 26 So., 638;

Vance vs. State, 34 Tex. Cr., 395; U. S. vs. DeGroat, 30

Fed., 764. 45 People vs. Miller, 5 Utah, 410. 46 People vs. Eastman, 77 Cal., 171;

Phelps vs. People, 55 Ill., 337. 47 Beasley vs. State, 138 Ind., 552;

Queen vs. Kennedy, 2 Q. B.

D., 307.

But this presumption is one of fact and not of law.50

The accused is not required to make satisfactory explanation of his possession of the property, but only to raise a reasonable doubt.51 And after the accused has given such reasonable explanation, then the burden is on the prosecution to overcome it before a conviction is warranted.52

What the accused may have said at the time the stolen property was found in his possession or at the time of his arrest is competent as part of the res gestae, and also on the question of intent,53 and as explanatory of the character of his possession.54

On the same principle the finding of only a part of the stolen goods in the possession of the accused may with the other evidence warrant a conviction.55

But the rule announced in this section can have little or no force or weight if the property was found in possession of the accused a long time after it was stolen,56 depending in great measure upon the nature

of the property and the circumstances of each particular transaction.

48 Keating vs. People, 160 111., 483;

Flannagan vs. People, 214 111.,

170-178; Com. vs. Randall,

119 Mass., 107; State vs.

Walker, 41 Iowa, 217; Hughes

Cr. Law, Sec. 451-452-453. 49 Conkright vs. People, 35 Ill., 206. 50 Smith vs. State, 58 Ind., 340;

People vs. Fagan, 66 Cal., 534;

State vs. Graves, 72 N. C, 481. 51 Hoye vs. People, 117 Ill., 44;

State vs. Miner, 107 Iowa, 556;

State vs. Merrick, 19 Me., 398;

Hughes Cr. Law, Sec. 413;

Blaker vs. State, 130 Ind., 201;

Van Straten vs. People, 26

Colo., 184. 52 Powell vs. State, 11 Tex. App.,

401; Jones vs. State, 30 Miss.,

653. 53 Hubbard vs. State, 107 Ala., 33;

Hughes Cr. Law, Sec. 455. 54 Burnett vs. People, 96 111., 607. 55 State vs. Buckley, 60 Iowa,

471; State vs. Phelps, 91 Mo.,

478. 56 State vs. Walker, 41 Iowa, 217;

Hughes, Cr. Law, Sec. 38.