State v. Stathos
| Decision Date | 18 September 1935 |
| Docket Number | No. 722.,722. |
| Citation | 181 S.E. 273,208 N. C. 466 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE. v. STATHOS. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Forsyth County; Pless, Judge.
George Stathos was convicted of receiving and concealing stolen goods, and he appeals.
New trial awarded.
The defendant was tried and convicted upon a bill of indictment charging that on the 21st day of December, 1934, he "unlawfully, wilfully, feloniously did receive and conceal stolen goods, to-wit: a certain violin valued at about $300.00, the property of one Elizabeth Hanaman, he, the said George Stathos, well knowing the same to have been feloniously stolen, taken and carried away, against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, " and from judgment of imprisonment appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning errors.
Ingle & Rucker, of Winston-Salem, for appellant.
A. A. F. Seawell, Atty. Gen., and John W. Aiken, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The appellant makes several exceptive assignments of error, but under the view we take of the case it is necessary to consider only that assignment which imputes error to that portion of the charge as follows: "If the State has convinced you beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence that at the time he bought the violin the circumstances, facts, and the knowledge of the defendant were such as to let him know or to cause an honest man who intended to be reasonably prudent in his business transactions to inquire further before he received the violin, and he failed to do so and took the violin without making inquiry although in possession of such facts, then, gentlemen of the jury, if you should find those facts and find them, beyond a reasonable doubt, it would be your duty to render a verdict of guilty."
C. S. § 4250, under which the bill of indictment was drawn, makes guilty knowledge one of the essential elements of the offense of receiving stolen goods. This knowledge may be actual, or it may be implied when the circumstances under which the goods were received were sufficient to lead the party charged to believe they were stolen. However, while it is true that it is not necessary that the person from whom the goods are received shall state to the person charged that the goods were stolen, and while the guilty knowledge of the person charged may be inferred from the circumstances of the receipt of the goods, still it is necessary to establish either actual or implied knowledge on the part of the person charged of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Fearing, 28
...See, e. g., State v. Oxendine, 223 N.C. 659, 27 S.E.2d 814 (1943); State v. Miller, 212 N.C. 361, 193 S.E. 388 (1937); State v. Stathos, 208 N.C. 456, 181 S.E. 273 (1935); State v. Hart, 14 N.C.App. 120, 187 S.E.2d 351, cert. denied, 281 N.C. 625, 190 S.E.2d 469 (1972). In State v. Stathos,......
-
State v. Parker
...E.g., State v. Miller, 212 N.C. 361, 193 S.E. 388 (1937); State v. Spaulding, 211 N.C. 63, 188 S.E. 647 (1936); State v. Stathos, 208 N.C. 456, 181 S.E. 273 (1935). However, our courts stated that to constitute the offense of receiving stolen property, the test was whether the defendant kne......
-
State v. Aschenbrenner
...62, 152 S.W. 1041; State v. Ebbeller, 283 Mo. 57, 222 S.W. 396, followed in State v. Day, 339 Mo. 74, 95 S.W. (2d) 1183; State v. Stathos, 208 N.C. 456, 181 S.E. 273; State v. Hamilton, 166 S.C. 274, 164 S.E. 639; State v. Newman, 127 Conn. 398, 17 A. (2d) 774; Meath v. State, 174 Wis. 80, ......
-
State v. Bogle
...he had been in an accident which killed or caused physical injury to a person. Id. at 477, 284 S.E.2d at 491; see also State v. Stathos, 208 N.C. 456, 181 S.E. 273 (1935) (receiving stolen goods), quoted in State v. Fearing, We cannot see any real distinction between implied knowledge as de......