Wells v. State, A04A1297.
| Decision Date | 21 June 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. A04A1297.,A04A1297. |
| Citation | 601 S.E.2d 433,268 Ga. App. 62 |
| Parties | WELLS v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Martin Eaves, Waycross, for Appellant.
Richard Currie, District Attorney, Melanie Brogden, Assistant District Attorney, for Appellee.
Jerome Wells was found guilty by a jury of theft by receiving stolen property (a stolen handgun), and in a subsequent bifurcated proceeding, was found guilty by the same jury of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. For the following reasons, we reverse the conviction for theft by receiving and affirm the conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
1. Wells claims that the State failed to produce evidence sufficient to show that he knew the handgun in his possession was stolen.
Under OCGA § 16-8-7(a), "[a] person commits the offense of theft by receiving stolen property when he receives, disposes of, or retains stolen property which he knows or should know was stolen...." Thus, proof that Wells knew or should have known that the handgun at issue was stolen was an essential element of the offense.
The State produced evidence that on September 10, 2002, Wells attempted to pawn the stolen handgun at a pawnshop. At the request of the pawnshop, police checked the serial number on the handgun and discovered that it had been reported stolen on March 28, 1998. The owner, who lived about 150 miles from the pawnshop, testified that the gun had been stolen from his truck, but he did not know who stole it, and he had no knowledge as to the whereabouts of the handgun until he was notified by police that it had been recovered at the pawnshop. The pawnshop owner testified that Wells and another man, identified as Wells's brother, told her that they were given the handgun by their grandfather. A police officer testified that Wells gave him a statement admitting that he was pawning the gun at the request of his brother. Wells testified that he and his brother took the handgun to the pawnshop to pawn it, and that he had no knowledge about the theft of the handgun.
Proof of possession, alone, of recently stolen property is not sufficient to establish the essential element of the offense of theft by receiving stolen property that the possessor knew or should have known that the property was stolen. Hurston v. State, 202 Ga.App. 311, 312, 414 S.E.2d 303 (1991). But knowledge sufficient to establish guilt may be inferred from possession in conjunction with other evidence of knowledge, and such guilty knowledge "may be inferred from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Merrow v. State
-
Reeves v. State
...Clowers v. State, 324 Ga.App. 264, 267(2)(b), 750 S.E.2d 169 (2013) (punctuation and footnote omitted).9 Wells v. State, 268 Ga.App. 62, 62–63(1), 601 S.E.2d 433 (2004) (citations and punctuation omitted) (“Proof of possession, alone, of recently stolen property is not sufficient to establi......
- Ballard v. State
-
Nails v. State
...See, e.g., Lopez-Vasquez , 331 Ga. App. at 572-573 (1), 771 S.E.2d 218.16 (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Wells v. State , 268 Ga. App. 62, 62-63 (1), 601 S.E.2d 433 (2004) (reviewing conviction under OCGA § 16-8-7 (a) for theft by receiving stolen property).17 See id. at 63 (1), 601 S.......