Staab v. State, 7359

• Decision Date: 23 September 1974
• Docket Number: No. 7359,7359
• Citation: 90 Nev. 347,526 P.2d 338
• Parties: Richard G. STAAB, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent.
• Court: Nevada Supreme Court

Page 338

526 P.2d 338

90 Nev. 347

Richard G. STAAB, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent.

No. 7359.

Supreme Court of Nevada.

Sept. 23, 1974.

Alfred Becker, Las Vegas, for appellant.

Robert List, Atty. Gen., Carson City, Robert E. Rose, Dist. Atty., and Kathleen M. Wall, Asst. Chief Deputy, Dist. Atty., Reno, for respondent.

OPINION

ZENOFF, Justice.

Richard G. Staab was charged in one count with grand larceny in the theft of four men's jackets from Weinstock's department store in Reno and on a second count with possession of stolen property. ¹ A motion to suppress evidence was heard in advance of trial because the items allegedly in Staab's possession were taken from his car. The motion was denied and the case tried before a jury who found him guilty on both counts. He was sentenced to two consecutive 10-year terms in the state prison.

The major issue on appeal challenges the denial of the motion to suppress evidence on the ground that the merchandise was illegally seized by reason of an invalid search of the automobile. Prior to the search in question, Staab was known to the police as a shoplifter and fence of stolen merchandise. On September 21, 1972 the police of Sparks, Nevada, were notified by the manager of the Seven Dwarfs Motel in Sparks that a person registered in the motel was acting suspiciously. Police investigation revealed that Staab was registered there under a fictitious name. The manager, a woman, observed numerous boxes of merchandise, as well as many loose items in his room including considerable new clothing still bearing price tags from which the store name had been removed. In fact, some merchandise tickets with names removed were found in the garbage can behind the motel. She observed new bed sheets of several kinds, pillow cases, a motor saw, hedge clippers, half-gallon or gallon bottles of liquor, perfumes, a coffee pot, a hot air comb, and a Sunbeam model iron marked 'For display only.'

She observed Staab carrying boxes and packages from time to time between the motel room and his automobile.

Detectives observed Staab at a market where he removed tools from a counter but was not observed returning them, although he left the store without making any purchases. On the evening he was arrested Staab was seen loading eight boxes and loose clothing into the trunk of his car. He was arrested shortly after he left the motel for registering under a fictitious name.

The car was driven to the police station where it was stored and inventoried. The police found the merchandise above listed which included four men's blue suede jackets with the tags still affixed. The jackets were traced to Weinstock's department store, determined to have been part of the Weinstock inventory and no sales slips were found to indicate that the jackets had been purchased.

Staab did not testify. A jury found him guilty of grand larceny in the theft of the jackets and of possession of stolen property. The principal issue on appeal is whether or not the seizure of the property at the police compound without a warrant was proper.

1. The circumstances known to the police by reason of their personal knowledge and observation supported an immediate search of the car upon probable cause to believe that it contained stolen merchandise. Although the search was not incident to the arrest it was an appropriate search in light of all of the knowledge at the disposal of the police. Because a search at the scene of the arrest would have been valid, the search a short time later at the police station was likewise valid. Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970). Wright v. State, 88 Nev. 460, 499 P.2d 1216 (1972), is authority for the position that police officers given the exigent circumstances of Staab's history and his conduct, had reasonable cause to believe the auto contained items subject to seizure. It matters not that the police search was thought by them to be rightful under their duty to inventory the contents of vehicles in their custody. Our conclusion rests squarely upon Chambers v. Maroney, supra, and Wright v. State, supra.

2. Staab also contends that the State failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Although the jackets were not proved to have been stolen by him by eyewitness testimony, the circumstantial chain of facts by which Weinstock's established ownership and possession and then the disappearance of the jackets, the absence of sales slips or any evidence of sales, together with Staab's possession was enough to satisfy the jury that he had stolen them.

Recent, exclusive and unexplained possession of stolen property by an accused person gives rise to an inference of guilt which may be sufficient to convict in the absence of other facts and circumstances which leave a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury. People v. Weaver, 18 Ill.2d 108, 163 N.E.2d 483 (1959). It is the fact of possession that provides the inference of guilt, an inference which is founded on the manifest reason that when goods have been taken from one person and are quickly thereafter found in the possession of another...