Patterson v. Com.

• Decision Date: 28 November 1933
• Parties: PATTERSON v. COMMONWEALTH.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

66 S.W.2d 513

252 Ky. 285

PATTERSON v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

November 28, 1933

As Corrected on Denial of Rehearing Jan. 23, 1934.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Criminal Division.

G. S Patterson was convicted of knowingly receiving stolen property of a value of more than $20, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

W. S Heidenberg and Chesley Searcy, both of Louisville, for appellant.

Bailey P. Wootton, Atty. Gen., and David C. Walls, Asst. Atty. Gen for the Commonwealth.

CREAL Commissioner.

G. S Patterson has been convicted of the crime of knowingly receiving stolen property of a value of more than $20, and sentenced to imprisonment for 4 years. Seeking a reversal of the lower court's judgment, his counsel argue a number of grounds which call for a summary of the evidence.

For some years appellant has been operating a number of secondhand stores, two of which are located in Louisville. Some time between January 20 and January 24, 1932, a fur coat belonging to Mrs. L. L. Dawson was stolen from her residence at Audubon Park in Louisville. Police officers were notified of the theft and furnished with a description of the coat. About June 20, 1932, Fred Burns and Lucile Burns, his wife, were arrested in Louisville, and, because of certain information which the police had acquired, they were taken to one of appellant's stores. A fur coat suiting the description of the one lost by Mrs. Dawson was discovered hanging in plain view, a short distance from the entrance to the store. This and some pistols alleged to have been stolen were taken by the officers and used in evidence on the trial of the case. Mrs. Dawson testified that the coat was the one stolen from her home and was positive in her identification. Mrs. Younger, a prominent and well-known furrier, who had repaired and cleaned the coat, was equally positive in her identification of it as the coat belonging to Mrs. Dawson. Mrs. Burns testified that she stole the coat from Mrs. Dawson's home and sold it to Mr. Patterson for $15. She likewise identified the coat found in the store and introduced in evidence as the one which she stole from the Dawson residence and sold to Patterson. She was corroborated in her statements as to the theft and disposal of the coat by her husband. Mrs. Dawson testified that the coat was taken between the 20th and 24th of January, stating that she wore it to a social gathering on the 20th and first discovered its loss on the 24th. E. E. Sutton, the father of Mrs. Dawson, testified that he knew his daughter wore the fur coat up until about the middle of January when he left for Florida. This evidence is important because appellant testified that he bought the coat offered in evidence on December 29, 1931, from a woman named Darnell. Mr. and Mrs. Burns testified that in November, 1931, they wanted to buy a cheap bicycle for their little girl, and with that in view went to the store of appellant where they purchased one for $6, paying a dollar down to have it held for them. Patterson asked them if they were in hard luck and out of employment, and on receiving an affirmative reply suggested that they take up stealing and proposed to buy the stolen articles from them. At his suggestion they began to steal and sold the stolen articles to Patterson. They testified to having stolen guns, pistols, and other articles from various places, and included in the list as testified to by them were pistols found by the officers in appellant's store. These were identified by their owners, who stated that they had been stolen from them.

Appellant denied that he suggested to Mr. and Mrs. Burns that they steal property or that he entered into any arrangement to purchase stolen goods from them, and denied that he bought a fur coat from them on or after January 20, 1932. He testified that on December 29, 1931, Mrs. Burns approached him and wanted to sell a fur coat, but that he declined to buy it on account of the difficulty of disposing of such articles. She pleaded with him to buy it, and he finally consented to let her have $4 and take the coat in pledge; that he made a report of this as required by statute; and that this is the only report made by him showing the purchase of a fur coat. He testified that he did not know Mrs. Burns at the time, and she gave her name as Mrs. Darnell, and her residence at 560 South Fifth street. In this he was corroborated by Aaron Shapiro.

Mrs. Darnell was called in rebuttal and testified that between December 25, 1931, and the first of the following year she brought a brown coat with a fox collar to appellant; that the coat had been left by a roomer at her home who had gone away without paying the rent, and that at the time she lived at 560 South Fifth street. Her daughter corroborated her in all details, except as to what occurred while she was away from home. Other matters in evidence will be referred to in disposing of grounds argued for reversal.

It is earnestly argued by counsel for appellant that the court should have sustained his motion for a peremptory instruction to find him not guilty at the close of the commonwealth's evidence and as renewed at the close of all the evidence, and as a basis for this argument it is urged: (1) That the court should have sustained appellant's objection to the introduction of the coat and the evidence regarding it, because it was procured under unreasonable and illegal search and seizure; (2) because Mr. and Mrs. Burns were accomplices and their evidence was without sufficient corroboration; (3) because knowledge that the property received was stolen is a controlling element in the crime, and the evidence is not sufficient to establish such knowledge on the part of appellant, since it does no more than create a mere suspicion.

Under section 10 of our Constitution, which was adopted as a guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure,...