Farzley v. State
| Decision Date | 20 June 1935 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 655 |
| Citation | 163 So. 394,231 Ala. 60 |
| Parties | FARZLEY v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Oct. 17, 1935
Certiorari to Court of Appeals.
George Farzley was convicted of an offense and appealed to the Court of Appeals. The judgment of conviction being there reversed the state now applies for certiorari to review and revise the judgment and decision of the Court of Appeals in Farzley v. State, 163 So. 393.
Writ denied.
A.A Carmichael, Atty. Gen., and James L. Screws, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the Motion.
Fred S. Parnell, of Florence, opposed.
Section 4912, Code 1923, contains a provision not in section 7329 of the Code of 1907. There was added "or having reasonable grounds for believing that it has been stolen."
As we understand the opinion of the Court of Appeals in this case, it is that the offense is not proven unless the defendant knows that the goods are stolen, but that a conviction may be sustained if the defendant has reasonable grounds for believing that the goods had been stolen, upon the idea that such "reasonable grounds" are sufficient upon which to predicate a finding by the jury as a legitimate inference that such knowledge did in fact exist.
This, we think, is different from what the Court of Appeals held in Lindsey v. State, 23 Ala.App. 411, 128 So. 209. On certiorari, this court did not express a dissent from that opinion. 221 Ala. 175, 128 So. 210.
While, as that court states, there is a difference between "knowing that it has been stolen," and "having reasonable grounds for believing that it has been stolen," it is now of the opinion that knowledge is necessary to a conviction, but that knowledge may be established by showing "reasonable grounds for believing." This is a statutory offense changing the common law. Its elements may be, and are defined by the statute, and, when so, are conclusive, so long as constitutional rights are not violated. The statute in our opinion is plainly expressed, and means that if "reasonable grounds for believing" exist, that element is established, although defendant may have had no "knowledge," and that "reasonable grounds for believing" are not inserted in the statute as a means of proving knowledge, but that it is a substitute for knowledge, in the alternative. Under the statute now, if the jury believes beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of facts which were known to defendant and which are sufficient in the opinion of the jury to show the existence of "reasonable grounds for believing" that the goods were stolen, and they were in fact stolen, no further inquiry in that respect need be pursued. So that we think it is not improper to charge the jury to that effect.
But it is essential to the crime here charged that the goods received by defendant were stolen and retained that status until they were delivered to defendant. If they were stolen, they continued to be stolen goods until they were recovered by their owner or some one for him. Copertino v. United States (C.C.A.) 256 F. 519; People v. Jaffe, 185 N.Y. 497, 78 N.E. 169, 9 L.R.A. (N.S.) 263, 7 Ann.Cas. 348; Kirby v. United States, 174 U.S. 47, 63, 64, 19 S.Ct. 574, 43 L.Ed. 890; State v. Alderman, 83 Conn. 597, 78 A. 331; 53 Corpus Juris 506, § 10.
The city detectives procured the negroes to burglarize the store in their presence and take the goods. The detectives saw them do it, and saw them get the goods and bring them direct to their possession. The goods were at all times under their control and observation, and they had the power to prevent them from being carried out of their presence. One of the officers testified that they got the goods or helped get them with the intention of returning them to the owner. They were in exactly the same status as though the detectives themselves had gone into the store and taken the goods without the intention of depriving the owner of them, but to set a trap to catch defendant. The goods were in the custody of the agents of the detectives in their sight and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ashurst v. State, 3 Div. 905
...that the goods were stolen, and they were in fact stolen, no further inquiry in that respect need be pursued." Farzley v. State, 231 Ala. 60, 61, 163 So. 394 (1935); W. LaFave and A. Scott, Criminal Law 687 (1972). "In most cases there is no direct testimony of the receiver's actual belief.......
-
Morissette v. United States 8212 10, 1951
...that an act was only a practical joke must be weighed against an admitted taking of property. Others of like purport are Farzley v. State, 231 Ala. 60, 163 So. 394; Nickerson v. State, 22 Ala.App. 640, 119 So. 243; People v. Williams, 73 Cal.App.2d 154, 166 P.2d 63; Schiff v. People, 111 Co......
-
U.S. v. Portrait of Wally
...of the true owner"); see also, e.g., State v. Diephaus, 55 Ohio App.3d 90, 562 N.E.2d 523, 525 (1st Dist.1989); Farzley v. State, 231 Ala. 60, 163 So. 394, 395 (1935); cf. People v. Towery, 174 Cal.App.3d 1114, 220 Cal.Rptr. 475, 492 Under the logic of the Second Circuit's approach, the doc......
-
Ex parte Walls
...was insufficient to sustain his conviction for the offense of receiving stolen property. Relying principally upon Farzley v. State, 231 Ala. 60, 163 So. 394 (1935), Walls specifically contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction for receiving stolen property because, ......