Opinion ID: 1945411
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Sufficiency of the Evidence Supporting the Drawing of an Inference of Guilt from the Possession of Recently Stolen Property.

Text: The unexplained possession of recently stolen property may properly entitle the jury to infer that the possessor is also the thief. State v. Gove, supra . The evidence that some of the lumber found in the defendant's possession had recently been stolen from Mr. Garside [5] was of such a nature that there can be no question but that the jurors were entitled to accept it as proof of this aspect of the long-accepted principle, if they rejected the defendant's explanation of his acquisition of the lumber. In addition to the testimony previously discussed concerning defendant's claim of obtaining the lumber, the jury had heard the testimony of Mr. Harrington who lived 100' from the defendant's building site who said that he had noticed a small pile of lumber on the defendant's site around the middle of May and that perhaps 5, 6 or 7 weeks before the seizure by the police a larger pile had appeared there. The jurors had also heard the testimony of the investigating officers to the effect that the defendant had first insisted that he had a cancelled check with which he had purchased the lumber and later had said he got it from a truck driver. The defendant denied making either of these statements. The issue was largely one of credibility and the jury was entitled to resolve it in the State's favor.