People v. Manning

Supreme Court of Colorado

People v. Manning

501 P.2d 1046, 180 Colo. 14

CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

DecidedOctober 10, 1972

DocketNo. 25466

StatusPublished

This text of 501 P.2d 1046 (People v. Manning) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Colorado primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Manning, 501 P.2d 1046, 180 Colo. 14 (Colo. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE PRINGLE

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of receiving stolen goods under 1967 Perm. Supp., C.R.S. 1963, 40-5-2(1). Defendant’s primary contention for reversal is that the evidence was insufficient to show that he knew the goods he purchased were stolen, such knowledge being an essential element of the crime of which he was convicted.

The People confess error and remind us that there must be proof of some circumstances showing knowledge of the theft beyond mere proof of recent unexplained possession. Noble v. People, 173 Colo. 333, 478 P.2d 662. The sole evidence here, other than recent possession, is that the accused bought the used tools in question for the sum of $10 which had a fair market value of not much more than that. The People concede that this is an insufficient showing upon which to predicate a finding of guilty knowledge, and we agree.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to sustain defendant’s motion for acquittal.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE PRINGLE

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of receiving stolen goods under 1967 Perm. Supp., C.R.S. 1963, 40-5-2(1). Defendant’s primary contention for reversal is that the evidence was insufficient to show that he knew the goods he purchased were stolen, such knowledge being an essential element of the crime of which he was convicted.

The People confess error and remind us that there must be proof of some circumstances showing knowledge of the theft beyond mere proof of recent unexplained possession. Noble v. People, 173 Colo. 333, 478 P.2d 662. The sole evidence here, other than recent possession, is that the accused bought the used tools in question for the sum of $10 which had a fair market value of not much more than that. The People concede that this is an insufficient showing upon which to predicate a finding of guilty knowledge, and we agree.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to sustain defendant’s motion for acquittal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

501 P.2d 1046, 180 Colo. 14, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-manning-colo-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack