Home/Court of Appeals of Georgia/Shorts v. State

Shorts v. State

223 S.E.2d 504, 137 Ga. App. 314, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 2430
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 20, 1976
Docket51562
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 223 S.E.2d 504 (Shorts 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
Shorts v. State, 223 S.E.2d 504, 137 Ga. App. 314, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 2430 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976).

Opinion

Bell, Chief Judge.

Defendant was convicted of theft by receiving stolen property in violation of Code § 26-1806. On appeal he complains that the evidence is not sufficient to authorize his conviction.

The state’s evidence was limited to a showing that a shotgun and a drill were stolen during a burglary of a home. On the day following the burglary, defendant on two separate occasions attempted to pawn the shotgun and the drill at a local pawn shop. Defendant testified that he obtained possession of the drill and shotgun from a friend when the latter requested the defendant’s assistance in pawning the items as the friend had no driver’s license; and that he did not know that the property was stolen. Held:

An essential element of the crime of theft by *315 receiving stolen property is knowledge that the goods are stolen when the defendant receives the property. Code § 26-1806. Knowledge may be inferred from circumstances which would excite the suspicions of an ordinarily prudent man. Hudgins v. State, 125 Ga. App. 576 (188 SE2d 430). Proof of possession of recently stolen property will not authorize an inference that the possessor received it with knowledge that the property was stolen. Clarke v. State, 103 Ga. App. 739 (120 SE2d 673). Applying these principles to the facts, we think the evidence does not authorize a verdict of guilty. Succinctly, all that the state proved was possession of recently stolen property which is insufficient standing alone to show guilty knowledge. No inference of guilty knowledge can be drawn from the circumstance of attempting to pawn the property nor from the testimony of defendant as it is completely consistent with innocence. The proof is fatally deficient.

Submitted January 12, 1976 Decided January 20, 1976. Langstaff, Campbell & Plowden, R. Edgar Campbell, for appellant. William S. Lee, District Attorney, Hobart M. Hind, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

Judgment reversed.

Clark and Stolz, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Wells v. State
601 S.E.2d 433 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2004)
Payne v. State
291 S.E.2d 236 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1982)
Pate v. State
280 S.E.2d 414 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1981)
Watts v. State
276 S.E.2d 884 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1981)
Davis v. State
267 S.E.2d 263 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1980)
Hanson v. State
262 S.E.2d 203 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1979)
Barfield v. State
253 S.E.2d 781 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1979)
Lee v. State
238 S.E.2d 852 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1977)
Pressley v. State
237 S.E.2d 8 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1977)
LaRoche v. State
231 S.E.2d 368 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
223 S.E.2d 504, 137 Ga. App. 314, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 2430, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shorts-v-state-gactapp-1976.