Prather v. State
| Decision Date | 20 November 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 43022,No. 2,43022,2 |
| Parties | Harold PRATHER v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Howard Moore, Jr., Atlanta, for appellant.
Lewis R. Slaton, Sol. Gen., J. Walter LeCraw, Paul Ginsberg, Amber W. Anderson, Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
1. Knowledge that goods are stolen is an essential element of the crime of receiving stolen goods. Sanford v. State, 4 Ga.App. 449, 61 S.E. 741. Where one admits buying and receiving goods shown by undisputed evidence to have been stolen, the burden is still upon the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the transaction occurred with guilty knowledge on the part of the accused. Chambers v. State, 94 Ga.App. 531, 95 S.E.2d 326; McGill v. State, 106 Ga.App. 482, 483, 127 S.E.2d 332. In most cases scienter is not susceptible of direct proof. Cobb v. State, 76 Ga. 664, 666. See also Licette v. State, 75 Ga. 253, 257; Waldrop v. State, 47 Ga.App. 849, 853, 171 S.E. 840; Hardy v. State, 100 Ga.App. 88(1), 110 S.E.2d 82. Here, the defendant's flight is one of numerous circumstances tending to establish his consciousness of guilt. See Brooks v. State, 98 Ga.App. 13, 15, 104 S.E.2d 620.
The evidence, though circumstantial, was sufficient to authorize defendant's conviction of knowingly receiving stolen goods.
2. The record shows that defendant was shot by the arresting officers and taken directly to the hospital where he remained for medical treatment until after indictment. Under these circumstances no commitment hearing was necessary. Cannon v. Grimes, 223 Ga. 35, 153 S.E.2d 445.
3. The defendant's indictment and trial for receiving stolen goods were not premature, where Count 2 of the indictment alleged that the principal thief had not been tried or convicted for the reason that he was unknown to the grand jurors and could not be apprehended; nor was this count of the indictment defective for the reason that it failed to allege that the principal thief was under 17 years of age or insane. See Code §§ 26-2620 and 26-2621; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. State, 46784
...is for them to conclude whether that be the case, or, on the other hand, whether it reveals a consciousness of guilt, Prather v. State, 116 Ga.App. 696(1), 158 S.E.2d 291, because he was really afraid that the test would reveal him to be more intoxicated than the officers observed. 'Actions......
-
Miller v. State
...of the person from whom the goods are received is a factor from which the defendant's knowledge may be deduced. Prather v. State, 116 Ga.App. 696(1), 158 S.E.2d 291 (1967). See also Wilson v. State, 211 Ga. App. 791, 793(3), 440 S.E.2d 534 (1994). Miller's inconsistent explanations, togethe......
-
Moody v. State
...v. State, 192 Ga. App. 695, 696, 385 S.E.2d 779 (1989); Stafford v. State, 187 Ga.App. 401, 370 S.E.2d 646 (1988); Prather v. State, 116 Ga.App. 696, 158 S.E.2d 291 (1967). This evidence also directly conflicts with Moody's assertion that he was at the apartment simply to use the telephone,......
-
Williams v. State
...on the stand. We hold that this evidence was sufficient to support a finding of guilty knowledge in this case. See Prather v. State, 116 Ga.App. 696(1), 158 S.E.2d 291 (1967). See also Thomas v. State, 161 Ga.App. 159(1), 288 S.E.2d 112 (1982); Hudgins v. State, 125 Ga.App. 576, 188 S.E.2d ......