Opinion ID: 1761390
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Count 2-Possession of Stolen Property

Text: We, the jury, find the defendant, Lloyd Vincent guilty of possession of stolen property in the amount of $100.00. La. Code Crim. P. art. 813 provides that, if the court finds that the verdict is not responsive to the indictment, it shall refuse to receive it, and shall remand the jury with the necessary oral instructions. La. Code Crim. P. art. 814 provides the only responsive verdicts which may be rendered where the indictment charges certain listed offenses. The crime of receiving stolen things is not listed therein. La. Code Crim. P. art. 815 provides: In all cases not provided for in Article 814, the following verdicts are responsive: (1) Guilty; (2) Guilty of a lesser and included grade of the offense even though the offense charged is a felony, and the lesser offense a misdemeanor; or (3) Not Guilty. Accordingly, we must determine whether the verdict returned, guilty of possession of stolen property in the amount of $100.00, is equivalent to one of the verdicts listed in art. 815. There is no crime in Louisiana entitled Possession of Stolen Property. Nevertheless, there is no formal requirement as to the language of the verdict except that it shall clearly convey the intention of the jury. La. Code Crim. P. art. 810; see State v. White, supra . In determining the intention of the jury, if ambiguous, reference may be had to the pleadings, the evidence, the admissions of the parties, the instructions, and the forms of the verdict submitted. State ex rel. Miller v. Henderson, 329 So.2d 707 (La.1976); State v. Broadnax, 216 La. 1003, 45 So.2d 604 (1950). In Miller, defendant was charged with escape from the penitentiary; the verdict returned was Guilty of Attempted Escape. We held the verdict to be responsive to the charge despite the failure of the jury to include the words from the penitentiary. We noted that the bill of information specifically charged defendant with simple escape from the penitentiary, that the trial judge in instructing the jury informed it that the defendant was accused of violating that specific statute, which he read to the jury, and that the trial judge also instructed the jury that it could find one of the following verdicts: Guilty, guilty of attempted escape from Louisiana State penitentiary, and not guilty. In the instant case, we do not consider that the language of the verdict clearly conveys an intention by the jury to find defendant guilty as charged or guilty of a lesser and included grade of the offense. While the bill of information specifically charged defendant with receiving stolen things, the judge did not read the specific statute, as in Miller, or a summary of it to the jury as part of the charge, nor did he furnish the jury with a list of verdicts that were responsive to the charge. Rather, the trial judge simply instructed the jury, As to the Second Count, there are four possible verdicts: 1, Guilty as charged of Possession of Stolen Property in the amount of $150.00; or 2, Guilty of Possession of Stolen Property in the amount of (value to be placed by the jury); and 3, Guilty of Attempted Possession of Stolen Property in the amount of (amount to be placed by the jury); and 4, Not Guilty[,] and furnished it with a list of those verdicts. There is no indication that the jury was even aware of the elements of the crime charged. We are unable to say that by the use of the term possession the jury intended to find defendant guilty of receiving stolen things (the crime charged) or guilty of a lesser and included grade of the offense. Thus, the verdict returned was not responsive to the offense charged. The trial judge erred in receiving it. Hence, we must reverse the conviction and sentence in count two (receiving stolen things).