Clarke v. State
| Decision Date | 24 May 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 38791,No. 2,38791,2 |
| Parties | Charles CLARKE v. STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Frank A. Bowers, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Paul Webb, Sol. Gen., Thomas R. Luck, Jr., Eugene L. Tiller, Atlanta, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The defendant was tried and convicted in the Superior Court of Fulton County for the offense of receiving stolen goods under Code §§ 26-2620 and 26-2621. His motion for new trial on the general and special grounds was denied and he excepts to that judgment. Held:
1. Before a conviction can be had for the offense of receiving stolen goods under Code §§ 26-2620 and 26-2621, every fact essential to the conviction of the principal thief, whether he be known or unknown, must be proved, as well as that the party on trial received the stolen goods with knowledge that they were stolen. Ford v. State, 162 Ga. 422(3), 134 S.E. 95; Stripland v. State, 114 Ga. 843(2), 40 S.E. 993; Ford v. State, 35 Ga.App. 655, 134 S.E. 353; Belton v. State, 21 Ga.App. 792, 95 S.E. 299; Wright v. State, 1 Ga.App. 158(2), 57 S.E. 1050.
2. Before one can be convicted of receiving stolen goods it must appear from the evidence that he knew the property was stolen at the time he received it. This knowledge may generally be inferred from circumstances which would excite the suspicions of an ordinarily prudent man. Licette v. State, 75 Ga. 253; Cobb v. State, 76 Ga. 664; Von Sprecken v. State, 70 Ga.App. 222, 28 S.E.2d 341.
3. However, the mere fact that, recently after the commission of the offense, the stolen goods are found in the possession of the defendant does not authorize the jury to infer that the accused was guilty of receiving said stolen goods knowingly. 'Upon proof alone of recent possession of stolen goods, the law does not put the burden upon the possessor of stolen goods of proving that he was not guilty of receiving the goods knowingly * * * This rule * * * would only apply to the sufficiency of the evidence which would authorize the jury to infer the guilt of the principal thief * * * but would not apply to the sufficiency of the proof which would authorize an inference of the guilt of * * * (the person alleged to have knowingly received the stolen goods).' Bird v. State, 72 Ga.App. 843, 844(4), 35 S.E.2d 483, 484. See also Suggs v. State, 59 Ga.App. 394, 1 S.E.2d 39; Chambers v. State, 94 Ga.App. 531, 95 S.E.2d 326.
4. Assuming but not deciding that the evidence was sufficient to show that the goods in the instant case were stolen as alleged in the indictment, the evidence as to the guilt of the defendant for the offense of receiving said stolen goods authorized a finding of nothing more than the fact that the defendant had possession of part of the goods shortly after the commission...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bonner v. State
...that someone other than the defendant, if known and apprehended, was guilty of the theft of the property. See Clarke v. State , 103 Ga.App. 739, 739, 120 S.E.2d 673 (1961) ("Before a conviction can be had for offense of receiving stolen goods ..., every fact essential to the conviction of p......
-
Gaskin v. State
...See Austin v. State, 89 Ga.App. 866, 868, 81 S.E.2d 508; Washington v. State, 96 Ga.App. 844, 845, 101 S.E.2d 885; and Clarke v. State, 103 Ga.App. 739(3), 120 S.E.2d 673. The case of Williams v. State, 16 Ga.App. 697, 85 S.E. 973, supra; Arkwright v. State, 57 Ga.App. 221, 194 S.E. 876; Ni......
-
People v. Diaz
...insufficient to convict where the defendant is not the thief and knowledge that the goods were stolen must be proved. Clarke v. State, 103 Ga.App. 739(4), 120 S.E.2d 673. Since the license plate was attached to the car and there is no evidence from which an inference can be drawn that the d......
-
Higginbotham v. State, 46590
...Austin v. State, 89 Ga.App. 866, 868, 81 S.E.2d 508; Washington v. State, 96 Ga.App. 844, 845, 101 S.E.2d 885, and Clarke v. State, 103 Ga.App. 739(3), 120 S.E.2d 673, and overruling conflicting cases, this court is now committed to the rule that unexplained possession of recently stolen go......