Brown v. State, 47350

• Decision Date: 21 May 1973
• Docket Number: No. 47350,47350
• Citation: 281 So.2d 924
• Parties: Henry Joie BROWN, Jr. v. STATE of Mississippi.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Page 924

281 So.2d 924

Henry Joie BROWN, Jr. v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 47350.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

May 21, 1973.

Rehearing Denied June 29, 1973.

James E. Higginbotham, Greenwood, Henry, Babour & DeCell, William Barbour, Jr., Yazoo City, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Wayne Snuggs, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

BROOM, Justice:

Appellant Brown appeals from a conviction of having received stolen property. He was tried in the Circuit Court of Leflore County and received a sentence of three years in the state penitentiary of which sentence two years were suspended. We affirm.

Juanita Mayfield of Chicago, Illinois was the owner of the car which was stolen, to-wit, a Lincoln. Brown testified at the trial that he purchased the car on August 4, 1971 in Chicago, Illinois in exchange for his Cadillac plus a sum of money. The car was taken from a parking lot in Chicago in July 1971 and subsequently located in Mississippi. Patrolman White of the Mississippi Highway Patrol was advised by a telephone call from an unidentified informer in December 1971 that Brown was driving the Lincoln. White determined that the Lincoln fitted the description of the stolen car. It had thereon an Illinois license plate registered to Brown but which plate was purchased for a Cadillac. Having found the car parked on a street in Greenwood in January 1972, White attempted to read the vehicle's public identification number from a plate or identification appliance located on the dashboard, but the plate was covered by an envelope which prevented White from reading the same. A few days later, on January 20, 1972, Brown was stopped by Patrolman White and asked to exhibit his driver's license. Brown exhibited to White an Illinois license which was found to be an improper license. Then White arrested Brown for driving with an improper license and having on the Lincoln a 'switched' license plate. Brown was advised of his constitutional rights and accompanied White to the Justice of the Peace where he was again informed of his constitutional rights prior to entering a plea of guilty to the two charges. After pleading guilty Brown was fined.

After Brown was fined, White asked him for permission to examine the Lincoln in Brown's possession. Without any objection, Brown voluntarily drove the Lincoln to a service station where it was elevated on a grease rack in order that White might read the true vehicle identification number which was located on the rear axle. Examination of the car by White revealed that the identification plate on the dashboard of the interior of the car had been tampered with and could not be read from outside the car. Brown stated that his reason for not having registered the Lincoln in Mississippi was because he did not have 'papers' on the vehicle. After the Lincoln was elevated on the rack, White passed the identification number on to National Crime Information Center and ascertained that the Lincoln was the one that had allegedly been stolen in Chicago on July 28, 1971. Having this information, White arrested Brown and charged him with receiving stolen property and again informed him of his constitutional rights, generally referred to as the Miranda warning. Brown was taken to the county jail where he signed a waiver of his rights and there he made the statement: 'I am caught with the car, so I am guilty.'

I.

Brown first contends that the trial court erred in refusing to grant him a new trial because the verdict of guilty was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. For the same reason, he also urges that error was committed below when the trial court refused to grant him a peremptory instruction at the conclusion of presentation of evidence. Here Brown contends that the prosecution failed to prove that he had the guilty knowledge necessary in order for him to be legally convicted of receiving stolen property.

It is true that 'guilty knowledge' is the gist of the offense of receiving stolen In Johnson, supra, there was no substantial evidence against the accused except that he was in naked possession of the property. Here, there are other factors present which indicate sufficient evidence of guilt to justify the jury verdict. In this case we find not only uncontradicted proof that Brown had in his possession the stolen Lincoln with a license tag thereon issued for another vehicle but also the following, to-wit: (1) Appellant, after being apprised that he was charged with possessing the stolen property and arrested therefor, made the statmeent: '. . . I am guilty;' (2) appellant testified that he purchased the car at a gasoline service station in Chicago from a man he had never seen before and never saw again after August 4, 1971; (3) Brown gave two conflicting reasons for not getting a title certificate when he purportedly bought the car, i.e., on the one hand he stated that at the time of the purchase of the Lincoln by him under Illinois law the purchaser does not get the certificate but signs it and the seller 'sends if off,' but on the other hand, on cross-examination, he stated his reason for not getting the title was that he owed a balance on the purchase price; (4) according to Brown he could not find one Tony Carrone from whom he allegedly bought the car; and (5) the owner of the service station where Carrone allegedly worked had never seen him. The record indicates the aforesaid incriminating evidence. Surely the statement of the appellant that he was guilty along with other incriminating facts and circumstances warranted the jury verdict.

property. Johnson v. State, 247 So.2d 697 (Miss.1971). In Johnson we reversed a conviction because the evidence was insufficient to show that he had guilty knowledge. It is to be noted that in order to be convicted for receiving stolen property it is not necessary...