Golden v. State

• Decision Date: 08 August 1907
• Docket Number: (No. 606.)
• Citation: 2 Ga. App. 440,58 S.E. 557
• Parties: GOLDEN et al. v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

58 S.E. 557

(2 Ga. App. 440)

GOLDEN et al.

v.STATE.

(No. 606.)

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Aug. 8, 1907.

1. Receiving Stolen Goods — Elements of Crime.

"The doctrine seems to be established that in those states in which, by statute or at common law, it is larceny to bring into the state goods stolen in another state or a foreign country, one who there receives goods with knowledge that they have been stolen in another state or country is liable to indictment for receiving the goods. This does not apply, however, in those states in which it is held that bringing in to the state goods stolen in another state or foreign country does not constitute larceny; for the goods must have been stolen in the jurisdiction in which it is sought to punish for the receiving."

2. Same—Evidence.

"Though, after committing larceny in an adjoining state, the thief brings the stolen property into this state and here carries it from place to place in a county of Georgia, he does not commit larceny in this state." Lee v. State, 64 Ga. 203, 37 Am. Rep. 67. It is, therefore, not a crime for one to receive in this state goods stolen in a foreign jurisdiction. Legislation making such receiving criminal is suggested. (Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from Superior Court, Chatham County; P. E. Seabrook, Judge.

Simon Golden and others were convicted of receiving stolen goods, and bring error. Reversed.

E. H. Abrahams and Robt. L. Colding, for plaintiffs in error.

W. W. Osborne, Sol. Gen., for the State.

POWELL, J. The defendants were accused of the offense of receiving stolen goods, knowing them to be stolen. It was alleged that the principal thief committed a burglary in Charleston, S. C, stole the goods there, and brought them to the county of Chatham, in this state, where the defendants received them with guilty knowledge. The case comes to us on demurrer to the indictment. "The doctrine seems to he established that in those states in which, by statute or at common law, it is larceny to bring into the state goods stolen in another state or a foreign country, one who there receives goods with knowledge that they have been stolen in another state or country is liable to indictment for receiving the goods. This does not apply, however, in those states in which it is held that bringing into the state goods stolen in another state or foreign country does not constitute larceny; for the goods must have been stolen in the jurisdiction in which it is sought to punish for the receiving." 12 Cyc. 210. By express statutory provisions in some states the offense includes a receiving in one state of property stolen in another. But, in the absence of such provision, proof of a foreign larceny, it is held, will not be sufficient to...