Rhone v. State, 6 Div. 676
| Decision Date | 30 July 1974 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 676 |
| Citation | 53 Ala.App. 338,299 So.2d 781 |
| Parties | James William RHONE v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Edward S. Zanaty, Birmingham, for appellant.
William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and Daniel J. Thompson, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The indictment against the appellant-defendant contained count one, which charged the defendant with larceny of groveries from a shop, store or warehouse. The groceries were specified in the indictment, and the value separately alleged. The total of the aggregate values was $21.48.
The indictment also contained count two, which charged the defendant with buying, receiving, concealing, or aiding in the concealment of the same items of groceries with the same individual valuations.
The jury convicted the defendant under count two and specified the aggregate of the groceries at $21.38. The trial court sentenced the defendant to three years in the penitentiary. The defendant took an indigent appeal from the judgment entered pursuant to the verdict.
The requisite scienter for crime of receiving stolen goods may be inferred from recent possession of stolen goods. Title 14, § 338, Recompiled Code 1958; Stanley v. State, 46 Ala.App. 542, 245 So.2d 827, cert. den., 286 Ala. 738, 245 So.2d 828.
When the state rested after its initial presentation of evidence, the defendant moved to exclude the evidence. The court denied the motion. This ruling is the only one that the defendant argues. It and the other rulings on the admission of the evidence, at the instance of the state are without merit.
It appears from the evidence that the defendant entered the area of Southway Discount Center, Inc., where the groceries were shelved for display and sale. The entry was made through an unattended cashier's lane or gate. The defendant did not have any shopping or grocery bag and came out through an unattended cashier's lane with a bag of groceries, as listed in the indictment and of the aggregate value of $21.48.
It appears that one Steven Caiola, a supervising employee of the store, had an elevated seat in close proximity to the unattended lanes. He testified that he observed the defendant enter the grocery section sans shopping bag, and that he also saw him come out with a bag of groceries, which he identified as to the value and ownership as alleged in the indictment. He halted the defendant after he passed throgh the exit lane and called an employee, whose testimony was essentially the same as Mr. Caiola as to the value and ownership. It appeared that the defendant did not have a cashier's slip to show payment of the groceries; that the groceries were in the possession of the defendant without permission or authority of the owners.
It appears further from the evidence that Mr. Caiola seized the bag and tore it, thereby obtaining possession of the groceries concealed in the bag.
We think that when the state rested, after presentation of its case, the evidence fully established that the items of groceries in the bag were taken from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Waters v. State, 4 Div. 578
...to infer scienter. The requisite scienter for this crime may be inferred from possession of recently stolen goods. Rhone v. State, 53 Ala.App. 338, 299 So.2d 781 (1974). While the possession of recently stolen property does not raise a presumption as a matter of law as to the possessor's gu......
-
Tyree v. State, 6 Div. 563
...828 (1970); Character v. State, 51 Ala.App. 589, 287 So.2d 916, cert. denied, 291 Ala. 775, 287 So.2d 919 (1973); Rhone v. State, 53 Ala.App. 338, 299 So.2d 781 (1974). The reasonableness of the explanation given by one in possession of recently stolen property is to be determined from all ......
-
Hunt v. State
...concealing, or aiding in concealing stolen property may be inferred from recent possession of the stolen goods. Rhone v. State, 53 Ala.App. 338, 299 So.2d 781. The appellant offered no evidence to rebut this We have carefully examined the record as is required by law and find no error there......
-
Cooper v. State
...scienter for [the] crime [of receiving stolen property] may be inferred from possession of recently stolen goods. Rhone v. State, 53 Ala.App. 338, 299 So.2d 781 (1974). While the possession of recently stolen property does not raise a presumption as a matter of law as to the possessor's gui......