State v. Work

• Citation: 603 A.2d 464
• Parties: STATE of Maine v. Timothy P. WORK.
• Decision Date: 22 October 1991
• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US)

Page 464

603 A.2d 464

STATE of Maine v. Timothy P. WORK.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Submitted on Briefs Sept. 5, 1991.

Decided Oct. 22, 1991.

William R. Anderson, Dist. Atty., Geoffrey Rushlau, Asst. Dist. Atty., Bath, for state.

Orrin Brown, Bath, for defendant.

Before McKUSICK, C.J., and ROBERTS, WATHEN, GLASSMAN, CLIFFORD and COLLINS, JJ.

GLASSMAN, Justice.

Timothy P. Work appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court (Sagadahoc County, Delahanty, C.J.) entered on a jury verdict finding Work guilty of a Class B offense of theft in violation of 17-A M.R.S.A. § 353 (1983). ¹ We disagree with Work's contention that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury verdict, and we affirm the judgment.

The jury heard the following evidence. At about 2:20 a.m. in Bath, Officer Joel Merry, after stopping a truck that he suspected of motor vehicle violations, observed that the trailer behind the truck appeared brand new and had some sort of "sliding deck," which he later discovered was a second new trailer. On top of the trailers was a blue snowmobile. Work was one of several passengers in the truck. While attempting to obtain identification from the driver, Officer Merry was confronted with resistance from the truck's passengers and nearby residents. During the confrontation, one of the truck's passengers drove off with Officer Merry's vehicle. When Officer Merry radioed for back-up assistance, the driver with Work drove towards the Bay Bridge trailer park, but reappeared within a brief period of time without the trailers and snowmobile. The police found the trailers and snowmobile in a parking lot along Bay Bridge Road, as well as a number of metal sheets. The trailers and snowmobile were owned by Sealand. The metal sheets, owned by Bath Iron Works, had been stored in a facility located on the same premises as Sealand. The trailers and snowmobile were valued at $4,990, while the metal sheets were valued at $1,600. The jury found Work guilty of a Class B theft, and Work appeals.

Work contends that because he was a passenger in the truck, the State failed to prove that he had exclusive possession of the stolen property. ² He also contends that because Officer Merry had never seen the metal sheets in the truck in which Work was a passenger, the State failed to establish that the property in issue had a value in excess of $5,000. We disagree. The law is well established that circumstantial evidence is no less conclusive than direct evidence in supporting a conviction. State v. Kenney, 534 A.2d 681, 682 (Me.1987). To be convicted of theft based on circumstantial evidence requires proof of exclusive possession, either actual or constructive, of the stolen property. State v. Durgan, 467 A.2d 165, 167 (Me.1983). To prove exclusive possession the State need not prove the accused had sole possession of recently stolen property. Id. We have previously stated that "joint possession of stolen property by two or more persons may be deemed the exclusive possession of any one of them where there is evidence that the defendant 'acted in concert' with the other person or persons in possession of the property as a 'participant in the crime.' " State v. Bachelder, 403 A.2d 754, 761 (Me.1979) (quoting State v. Gove, 289 A.2d 679, 681 (Me.1972)). An inference of guilt may be drawn when recently stolen goods have been placed in a location "by the act of the party or [with] his undoubted concurrence." State v. Barrett, 256...