These appeals are subject to dismissal for failure to docket within the time allowed. We have, nevertheless, elected to consider them on their merits.

The evidence is clearly sufficient to permit the jury to find that the drugs Brooks took from the trailer had been placed there by Whitaker. His case was properly submitted to the jury. We have considered Whitaker’s remaining assignments of error and find them to be without merit.

In the absence of Mitchell’s declaration to Brooks, “We have got to have the stuff back,” while looking at the bags of marijuana in Brooks’ pocket, the evidence would have been insufficient to take his case to the jury. This statement, however, when coupled with all of the other circumstances made a case for the jury. The jury could infer that Mitchell was referring to the marijuana and that if “We have got to have” the marijuana back, “we” must have had it before.

We hold that the court erred, however, in excluding testimony from Mitchell whereby he attempted to explain what he meant when he told Brooks “We have to have it back.” His explanation would have been that items of personal property were missing from the apartment, he suspected Brooks as being the thief, and that it was the stolen property to which he referred and not the marijuana of which he knew nothing. His explanation raised a question of credibility which the jury should have been allowed to resolve.

On defendant Whitaker’s appeal — No error.

On defendant Mitchell’s appeal — New trial.

dissenting as to defendant Mitchell:

Rickie Brooks, age 16, who admitted he had been expelled from school “a bunch of times . . . because of things that hap*8pened at school and things that happened away from school,” testified that when defendant Mitchell came up to him and said, “We have got to have the stuff back,” he was glancing at his (Brooks’) left pocket where the tips of the two bags were sticking out.

The majority concedes that the evidence was insufficient to take the case to the jury, but that the declaration coupled with all the other circumstances made a case for the jury. I disagree. I see no other incriminating circumstances, and the declaration is not sufficient evidence of Mitchell’s possession of marijuana to submit to the jury. In my opinion the other circumstances tend to show exclusive possession by Whitaker and negate, rather than support, the State’s case against Mitchell. The charge against Mitchell should be dismissed.