Van Richie v. State, 5583

• Decision Date: 10 May 1971
• Docket Number: No. 5583,5583
• Citation: 250 Ark. 700,466 S.W.2d 462
• Parties: Van RICHIE, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 462

466 S.W.2d 462

250 Ark. 700

Van RICHIE, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee.

No. 5583.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

May 10, 1971.

Louis W. Rosteck, Little Rock, for appellant.

Ray Thornton, Atty. Gen., Garner L. Taylor, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.

HOLT, Justice.

The trial court, sitting as a jury, found appellant guilty of burglary and imposed a two-year sentence in the State Penitentiary. On appeal, the appellant contends for reversal that the evidence is insufficient to establish that a burglary had occurred, or that he had committed the alleged burglary.

In accordance with our well-established rule, we must view the evidence on appeal in the light most favorable to the appellee and sustain the verdict when there is any substantial evidence to support it. Crow v. State (Ark. June 15, 1970) 455 S.W.2d 89; Reynolds v. State, 211 Ark. 383, 200 S.W.2d 806 (1947); Sanders v. State, 198 Ark. 880, 131 S.W.2d 936 (1939).

On a Sunday afternoon at approximately 5 p.m., officer Gene Johnston received information on his car radio that Teeter's car lot had been burglarized by two individuals. It appears that the officer was cruising in this neighborhood. When he dbserved the appellant and a codefendant seven blocks from this car lot, he stopped them and conducted a 'field search' which revealed that both men were in possession of various papers belonging to Teeter's. Thereupon the officer transported the two suspects to Teeter's where he was joined by two other police officers. There the Teeter papers, consisting of four separate items, were removed from the possession of both suspects, although Officer Johnston could not say which items were removed from appellant. Officer Johnston testified that he found a window broken out beside the door leading into the office and that a person could reach through the broken window and unlock this door. Officer Yow testified that appellant and his codefendant told him they had taken a set of 'master keys'; then both suspects accompanied him to a lot behind a church building near Teeter's where, according to their directions, he found the keys in the grass. This officer, after being uncertain which suspect pointed out the location of the keys, finally testified there was no doubt in his mind that appellant showed him where the keys were. The State also adduced evidence from the manager of the car lot that on the date of the burglary he responded to a call from the police to come to the place of business and identify some keys and papers. As a witness he identified the four items of papers consisting of a car sales contract between Teeter's and a customer, related papers, and the customer's $2,295.00 check payable to Teeter's. He testified that they came from Teeter's and that he remembered this particular transaction with this customer since he had to get a new contract and check. He also testified that the 'master keys' belonged to the car lot and were used in the operation of the business.

In Johnson v. State, 190 Ark. 979, 82 S.W.2d 521 (1935), we said:

'* * * The law is that recent possession of stolen property, unexplained, is sufficient to warrant a jury in returning a verdict of guilty...