Commonwealth v. Henderson

• Decision Date: 04 May 1973
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Michael HENDERSON, Appellant.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

304 A.2d 154

451 Pa. 452

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Michael HENDERSON, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

May 4, 1973.

Vincent J. Ziccardi, Defender, John W. Packel, Asst Defender, Francis S. Wright, Jr., Chief, Appeals Div Defender Assn. of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Arlen Specter, Dist. Atty., Richard A. Sprague, First Asst. Dist Atty., James D. Crawford, Deputy Dist. Atty., Milton M Stein, Asst. Dist. Atty., Chief, Appeals Div., L. A. Perez, Jr., Philadelphia, for appellee.

Before JONES, C.J., and EAGEN, O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY, NIX and MANDERINO, JJ.

OPINION

MANDERINO Justice.

The appellant, Michael Henderson, who was convicted in a nonjury trial of receiving stolen goods, contends that his demurrer to the prosecution's evidence should have been granted. We agree and reverse.

The prosecution's evidence established that sometime between July 7, 1970 and July 14, 1970, a 1963 Volkswagen was stolen in Philadelphia. On July 10, 1970, a license plate belonging to a different automobile was also reported stolen. About 7:30 p.m., on July 31, 1970, two and one-half to three weeks after the thefts, appellant was arrested when observed driving the stolen car with the stolen license plate. The appellant pulled over at an officer's request and produced his driver's license. The appellant did not have the owner's card. This constituted all of the evidence presented by the prosecution.

At the conclusion of the prosecution's case, the appellant's demurrer to the evidence was overruled. Appellant then took the stand and testified that he had borrowed the car from a man named Richard approximately a half-hour to forty-five minutes prior to his arrest. The appellant, along with Carole Laws (his fiancee) and Richard, spent the entire day helping one Gloria Bearing (Carole Law's cousin) move from one apartment to another apartment in the same building at 5008 McKean Avenue. Richard was a friend of Gloria Bearing and had been invited by Bearing to assist her in moving, just as were the appellant and his fiancee. The moving operation began about 8:30 a.m., and lasted all day. When the moving was over, late in the day, Richard mentioned that he was going downstairs to visit some-one else who lived in the same apartment building. The appellant asked Richard if he could borrow Richard's car for a short while because appellant had only a half-hour to forty-five minutes to pick up an anniversary gift for his fiancee's parents. Richard gave appellant the key to Richard's car and appellant, along with his fiancee, proceeded to the Cheltenham Shopping Center where they picked up the anniversary gift at Gimbels. They were returning when they were stopped by the police. Appellant first met Richard when the moving began at 8:30 a.m. When arrested, the appellant told the police the circumstances concerning his possession of the car. The appellant did not contradict any of the facts presented by the prosecution and the prosecution did not contradict any of the facts presented by the appellant.

The standard to be applied in ruling upon a demurrer is whether the evidence in sufficient to warrant the jury in finding the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v. Collins, 436 Pa. 114, 259 A.2d 160 (1969). The application of the standard requires a consideration of the reasonable inferences which the jury may make from the prosecution's evidence. These inferences must establish all elements of the crime charged.

The crime of receiving stolen goods requires proof that the appellant knew that the property possessed was stolen. Such knowledge on the part of the appellant is an essential element of the crime, in addition to the elements of appellant's possession of the property and the theft of the property prior to appellant's possession.

The element of appellant's guilty knowledge may be established by direct evidence of knowledge or by circumstantial evidence from which it can be inferred that appellant had Reasonable cause to know that the property was stolen. If from the circumstantial evidence, it can be inferred that the appellant had reasonable cause to know, a final inference can reasonably be made that he in fact Knew that the property was stolen. It is difficult to enumerate every circumstance that would warrant a conclusion that the appellant had reason to know the property was stolen. Some of the significant circumstances can be the appellant's conduct; the appellant's relationship to the victim; the elapsed time between the appellant's possession and the theft; the situs of the theft and the situs of the possession; the kind of property; the quantity of the property; and the identifying characteristics of the property. See Turner v. United States, 396 U.S. 398, 90 S.Ct. 642, 24 L.Ed.2d 610 (1970); Commonwealth v. Shaffer, 447 Pa. 91, 288 A.2d 727 (1972); Commonwealth v. Owens, 441 Pa. 318, 271 A.2d 230 (1970).

Any or all of the above circumstances, and others not enumerated, taken sometimes alone and sometimes in relation to each other, may give rise to the final necessary inference that the appellant knew that the property possessed was stolen property.

In Commonwealth v. Owens, 441 Pa. 318, 271 A.2d 230 (1970), although it was established that the defendant had possession of stolen property we held that the circumstances (other than defendant's possession of stolen property), could not sufficiently support the inference necessary for conviction. In Owens, the kind of property was a gun and possession of the gun by the defendant occurred nineteen days after the theft. The opposite conclusion was reached in Commonwealth v. Shaffer, 447 Pa. 91, 288 A.2d 727 (1972). We held there that the circumstances (other than the defendant's possession of stolen property) would sufficiently support the necessary inferences from which guilt could be concluded beyond a reasonable doubt. In that case, the defendant was in possession less than twenty-four hours after the theft, the kind of property was jewelry which was clearly marked with the names and initials of other individuals, the defendant gave the police a false name when confronted and there was an attempt by one of defendant's co-felons to hide the jewelry. These circumstances we held, were adequate to support the necessary inference that the defendant Knew or had reason to know that the property he possessed was stolen.

The significance of Owens and Shaffer is that possession of stolen property in and of itself is not sufficient evidence from which a...