Opinion ID: 1875888
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: The state presented no evidence as to Whatley's receipt of the generator. Therefore, there can be no evaluation of the transaction under the reasonable man standard. The state's evidence consisted of the actions which Whatley took after he was in possession of the generator. That evidence showed that he sold or pawned the generator to the owner of a bar about twenty-four hours after it was stolen, for substantially less than the value of the generator. The state did not present substantial evidence to show guilty knowledge. As the court held in Rodgers v. State, 222 Miss. 23, 75 So.2d 42 (1954), where the state relies totally on circumstantial evidence to establish guilty knowledge in a case of receiving stolen property, the state bears the burden not only to prove the appellant's guilt beyond every reasonable doubt but to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of his innocence. 222 Miss., at 29, 75 So.2d 42. In that case, the defendant was convicted of receiving stolen whiskey. The state relied upon the secrecy involving the transaction to show guilty knowledge. However, at that time, possession of whiskey was illegal in this state. The Court reversed the conviction, holding that the secrecy surrounding the handling of the whiskey ... tended just as much to show that the manner of handling and dealing with the whiskey was because it was an illegal commodity as ... because the parties were dealing with stolen property. One theory is just as reasonable as the other... . Id. Further, the Court held that The jury were not warranted in rejecting the theory favorable to the appellant under the facts of this case... . Id. In this case, the immediate sale of the generator at such a low price could indicate guilty knowledge. It also could indicate an immediate need for cash. Finally, it could indicate that the defendant, Whatley, was guilty of the actual theft of the generator. As early as 1889, the Mississippi Supreme Court held that a thief cannot be convicted under the statute for receiving stolen property. In Frank v. State, 67 Miss. 125, 128, 6 So. 842 (1889), the Court held that It is not sufficient to convict a prisoner of receiving goods knowing them to be stolen, to show that he stole them; but where circumstances warrant the conclusion that they were stolen by another, and they are traced to the possession of the defendant, under circumstances sufficient to make him believe they were stolen, this is sufficient to uphold a conviction. In Manning v. State, 129 Miss. 179, 181, 91 So. 902 (1922), the Court held that Where a defendant is charged with receiving stolen goods and the evidence shows that he is guilty of the larceny of the goods in question, he cannot be convicted of the offense with which he is charged... . Two offenses are akin to the extent that the crime of receiving stolen goods cannot be committed, except as to goods which have been stolen, but the thief cannot be guilty of both offenses. In Thomas v. State, 205 Miss. 653, 657, 39 So.2d 272 (1949), the Court reiterated this view. The rule is succinctly stated in 53 C.J. 513, section 28, as follows: `It is elementary law that one who steals property cannot be convicted of receiving, concealing, or aiding in concealing the property stolen. The statutes making the receiving of stolen goods a substantive offense are not intended to punish the thief by way of a double penalty but are directed against those who would make theft easy or profitable. Nor can one who has stolen property jointly with another, that is to say, who jointly with another takes part in the caption and asportation of the property, be convicted of receiving stolen property... . In Anderson v. State, 232 So.2d 364 (Miss. 1970), the Court once again held: One who steals property cannot be convicted of receiving, concealing or aiding in concealing stolen property. Id. at 365-66. Anderson was overruled in the case of Knowles v. State, 341 So.2d 913 (Miss. 1977), but only to the extent that an accessory before the fact can be convicted under the statute for receiving stolen goods. At the close of the state's case, there was no evidence showing that Whatley had either received or stolen the goods. However, during the defense's case, Whatley gave his version of the receipt of the property. Apparently, the jury rejected his story, since he was convicted. With the rejection of Whatley's story, there is no evidence in the record of how he actually came by the generator. However, during cross-examination, the state asked Whatley if he knew the location of the Holiday Inn in Greenville, and how far away the Hide-Away Lounge was from the Holiday Inn. That questioning, and Whatley's affirmative answers, could lead to the inference that Whatley indeed stole the generator from the parking lot of the Holiday Inn. Without any evidence showing that Whatley either received or stole the generator, the jury was left with mere possession of stolen property. That is not a crime under § 97-17-69. Thompson, 457 So.2d at 955. At the close of the state's case, the defendant requested a peremptory instruction. The standard of review appropriate in such a case is that a directed verdict or peremptory instruction should be awarded when the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the state, do not make out a case sufficient to go to the jury. Shelton v. State, 445 So.2d 844, 848 (Miss. 1984). The state's evidence, taken in the light most favorable to it at the close of the state's case, merely established possession of property recently stolen, which was worth more than $100.00, and which was sold, or pawned, by the defendant for $20.00. That evidence was insufficient to show guilty knowledge. Furthermore, the state presented no evidence at trial bearing on the defendant's receipt of the goods, and the defendant's version of receipt of the goods was apparently rejected by the jury. The state failed to present evidence sufficient to withstand the defendant's motion for a directed verdict on the charge of receiving stolen property. Therefore, the trial court erred in not sustaining the motion for directed verdict and the indictment is accordingly dismissed. REVERSED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED. PATTERSON, C.J., WALKER and ROY NOBLE LEE, P.JJ., and HAWKINS, PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN and ANDERSON, JJ., concur.