Reese v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Reese v. State

149 S.E.2d 156, 113 Ga. App. 525, 1966 Ga. App. LEXIS 1122

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 14, 1966

Docket41917

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 149 S.E.2d 156 (Reese v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Reese v. State, 149 S.E.2d 156, 113 Ga. App. 525, 1966 Ga. App. LEXIS 1122 (Ga. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Deen, Judge.

Knowledge that the goods in question were [526]*526stolen is an essential element of the crime of receiving stolen goods. Sampson v. State, 60 Ga. App. 512 (4 SE2d 290). It may, however, be inferred from circumstances which would lead a reasonable person to believe that the goods found in his possession were in fact stolen. Birdsong v. State, 120 Ga. 850 (48 SE 329). In assessing the defendant’s unsworn statement, the jury may believe it in part and disbelieve it in part (Beatty v. State, 54 Ga. App. 280 (1) (187 SE 686)). The evidence here demanded a finding that the feed which the defendant was hauling in her car was stolen by Nelson. The evidence as to guilty knowledge is circumstantial, but reveals that she was worried about chicken feed being found in her car and that she had protested hauling any more stuff. The defense raised was merely that the defendant did not know the stolen grain was in the car, but from all the circumstances of the case, including her statement showing knowledge of prior illegal transactions in which she was involved with her husband and Nelson, indubitably, the jury was at liberty to disbelieve the explanation offered.

Judgment affirmed.

Nichols, P. J., and Hall, J., concur.

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

Deen, Judge.

Knowledge that the goods in question were [526]*526stolen is an essential element of the crime of receiving stolen goods. Sampson v. State, 60 Ga. App. 512 (4 SE2d 290). It may, however, be inferred from circumstances which would lead a reasonable person to believe that the goods found in his possession were in fact stolen. Birdsong v. State, 120 Ga. 850 (48 SE 329). In assessing the defendant’s unsworn statement, the jury may believe it in part and disbelieve it in part (Beatty v. State, 54 Ga. App. 280 (1) (187 SE 686)). The evidence here demanded a finding that the feed which the defendant was hauling in her car was stolen by Nelson. The evidence as to guilty knowledge is circumstantial, but reveals that she was worried about chicken feed being found in her car and that she had protested hauling any more stuff. The defense raised was merely that the defendant did not know the stolen grain was in the car, but from all the circumstances of the case, including her statement showing knowledge of prior illegal transactions in which she was involved with her husband and Nelson, indubitably, the jury was at liberty to disbelieve the explanation offered.

Judgment affirmed.

Nichols, P. J., and Hall, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 S.E.2d 156, 113 Ga. App. 525, 1966 Ga. App. LEXIS 1122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reese-v-state-gactapp-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack