Edward Munoz Chavez, Appellant v. the State of Texas, Appellee

Summary

The Court reversed the Amarillo Court of Appeals, holding that recent unexplained possession of stolen property is insufficient to sustain a theft conviction when the State's charging instrument specifically requires proof of receipt of stolen property. The decision affirms that the Hynson rule remains applicable and that the McClain decision does not overrule it in such contexts. Justice Baird concurred, criticizing the majority's reliance on McClain. Justice Overstreet dissented.