Appellant appeals from his conviction of two counts of burglary of the same residence occurring on January 30,1981 and February 2, 1981.
1. Appellant raises the general grounds, asserting the insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdicts on both counts.
The еvidence, while circumstantial, was sufficient to convict appellant of both burglariеs. “ ‘When property alleged to be stolen is proven to be stolen property аnd the crime charged has been committed by someone, the recent unexplained possession of the stolen property by the defendant is a circumstance from which guilt may be inferred. [Cit.] From this, it may be inferred that the defendant charged committed the theft prоven. This being so, no further proof, circumstantial or direct, showing that the appellant committed the burglary was necessary for conviction. [Cit.]’
Humes v. State,
Appellant was arrested on the very day of the second burglary while in possession of commingled goods identified as having bеen taken in both burglaries. Certain items from the first burglary were also recovered from the wоodpile at appellant’s home. Appellant gave no testimony concerning the items under the woodpile. He did offer an explanation concerning the pоssession of commingled items from both burglaries, found in the taxicab he occupied with Eddie Lаmar Reed and Herschel DeWayne Reed during their joint efforts to sell the items. That explanation was that the Reeds had invited him to ride along and drink beer and had proposed thаt they could buy more beer if they sold the items. According to appellant, he was curious as to where the Reeds had obtained the items, but he did not ask. The subsequently impeachеd testimony of both Reed brothers was exculpatory of appellant, tending to show that his possession was innocent.
“ ‘It was within the jury’s province to believe that appellаnt’s explanation of his possession advanced at trial was not a reasonablе or satisfactory one. [Cit.]’ [Cits.]”
Allen v. State,
Appellant argues that the jury had to go outside thе evidence to find that he was a party to the first burglary, and asserts that there was absolutely no evidence adduced to authorize his conviction of this crime. However, aрpellant’s possession of property taken in the first burglary commingled with goods stolen in thе second was a circumstance from which the jury was authorized to find that he was a pаrty to the first burglary. See
Rakestraw v. State,
supra at 565. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the trior of fact could reasonably have found from the evidence adduced at trial proof of appellant’s guilt of both burglaries. Jackson v. Virginia,
2. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in charging the jury on the credit to be given to certain prior inconsistent statements which were used to impeach the Reed brothers. Our review of the transcript shows that instructions, otherwise adequate to limit consideration of the prior inconsistent statements to impeachment purposes, were given. See
Wilson v. State,
3. Appellant finally contends that the trial court impermissibly commented on the proof by making a statement in colloquy with appellant’s counsel. Appellant made no оbjection to the remark and no motion for mistrial. “It is well settled that statements by the court nоt made during the charge to the jury must be the subject of timely exception in order to be reviewable . . .”
Head v. Pollard Lumber Sales,
Judgment affirmed.