Todd v. State
| Decision Date | 13 October 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 75153,75153 |
| Citation | 362 S.E.2d 400,184 Ga.App. 750 |
| Parties | TODD v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
William R. Rice, Reidsville, Charles P. Rose, Jr., Hinesville, for appellant.
Dupont K. Cheney, Dist. Atty., J. Thomas Durden, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Todd was convicted of two counts of theft by receiving stolen property and one count of unlawful possession of protected wildlife. At trial, he did not contest his guilt of the latter offense. Consequently, the present appeal involves only the two theft convictions.
Acting on a telephone tip from a "concerned citizen" advising that the appellant was in possession of certain protected wildlife which he intended to transport to Florida the following day, two Georgia Department of Natural Resources ("DNR") rangers proceeded to the vicinity of a farm operated by the appellant but owned by his mother. There, from a vantage point on adjacent property, they observed an individual loading crates onto the bed of a truck. Later, after the truck had departed, the rangers proceeded onto the farm to investigate further, whereupon they observed two poultry crates containing protected species of wildlife. They also observed two vehicles on the property, one a Mercedes-Benz automobile and the other a Chevrolet Silverado pickup truck with no engine or rear bumper. The vehicle identification numbers had been removed from the dashboards of both these vehicles, but the vehicle identification number of the truck was discovered inside its glove compartment, enabling the agents to determine from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation that the pickup truck had been reported stolen. Based on this information, a search warrant was obtained authorizing the seizure of "stolen motor vehicles and component parts of stolen motor vehicles." The ensuing search resulted in the seizure of a box of veterinary supplies from the back of the Mercedes, bearing a shipping label naming the appellant as addressee. Through certain warranty information discovered in the glove compartment of the Mercedes, the agents were able to determine that it had also been reported stolen.
The appellant's mother testified that the two vehicles had been on her property for approximately 11 months prior to their seizure. She stated that about an hour before the Silverado pickup truck had appeared there, the appellant had told her: She further stated that an individual she knew as Robert White had arrived shortly thereafter, transporting the pickup on a larger truck. The appellant's mother testified that she had not observed the delivery of the Mercedes-Benz onto her property. Held:
1. The appellant asserts that the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion for a directed verdict of acquittal with respect to the two counts of theft by receiving stolen property.
OCGA § 16-8-7(a). While proof of knowledge that the property is stolen is an essential, Whitehead v. State, 169 Ga.App. 518, 519, 313 S.E.2d 775 (1984).
The circumstances surrounding delivery of the pickup truck, combined with the evidence that the vehicle identification numbers had been removed from both it and the Mercedes in violation of OCGA § 40-4-22, was sufficient to warrant an inference of guilty knowledge with respect to the receipt and possession of both vehicles. See generally Cheek v. State, 170 Ga.App. 230(1), 316 S.E.2d 583 (1984). Reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could reasonably have found the appellant guilty of both counts of theft by receiving stolen property beyond a reasonable doubt. See generally Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); Humphrey v. State, 252 Ga. 525(1), 314 S.E.2d 436 (1984).
2. The appellant asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence seized from the farm prior to the issuance of the search warrant.
It is the relationship of the person with the property searched that gives rise to the protection of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Jackson
...of the automobile parked on her premises. See Britt v. State, 186 Ga.App. 418, 420(3), 367 S.E.2d 298 (1988); Todd v. State, 184 Ga.App. 750, 751(2), 362 S.E.2d 400 (1987); Sanders v. State, 181 Ga.App. 117, 119(1), 351 S.E.2d 666 (1986). As acknowledged by the majority, ownership is not th......
-
Morrill v. State
...illegally seized from that house, and the trial court did not err in denying Morrill's motion to suppress. See Todd v. State, 184 Ga.App. 750, 751-752(2), 362 S.E.2d 400 (1987). Even if the court did err in admitting the evidence seized from Kirkland's house, the overwhelming evidence of Mo......
-
Boatright v. State
...188 Ga.App. 287, 288-289, 372 S.E.2d 670, citing Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128(1), 99 S.Ct. 421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387; Todd v. State, 184 Ga.App. 750(2), 362 S.E.2d 400; Sanders v. State, 181 Ga.App. 117(1), 351 S.E.2d 666. See also Section III, Division 8 III. A89A0158. FRANK O'BERRY v. THE ST......
-
Edwards v. State
...and the car, the only item which he has standing to contest is the empty container seized from his person. Todd v. State, 184 Ga.App. 750, 751(2), 362 S.E.2d 400 (1985). Although no cocaine was found on Pelayo's person and he disclaimed interest in it, the car was his and he may contest the......