# State v. Cobb

> Supreme Court of Missouri · September 8, 1969 · 444 S.W.2d 408

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9674307

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Harold COBB, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Missouri
- **Decided:** September 8, 1969
- **Citations:** 444 S.W.2d 408; 1969 Mo. LEXIS 754
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Donnelly
- **Judges:** Storckman, Henley, Finch, Morgan, Holman, Donnelly, Seiler
- **Cited by:** 119 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9674307

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that the jury determines credibility and is free to disbelieve a defendant's innocent explanation of his possession of stolen property, even if the explanation is not impeached

## Opinion text

DONNELLY, Judge
(dissenting).
I would apply the following rules to the facts in this case:
(1) A recent, unexplained, and exclusive possession of stolen property will support an inference of the guilt of the possessor.
(2) To “create an inference of guilt, the term ‘exclusive’ does not mean that the possession must be separate from all others * * State v. Oliver, 355 Mo. 173, 176 , 195 S.W.2d 484, 486 .
(3) However, in situations where joint possession is claimed, there must be other evidence to connect defendant with the offense. State v. Oliver, supra; State v. Crawford, 59 Utah 39 , 201 P. 1030 .
In my opinion, the “other evidence” adduced in this case is not sufficient to show defendant participated in the burglary.
I respectfully dissent.
SEILER, J., concurs.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9674307. Public record. Not legal advice.