Court Opinion

ID: 9649843
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 15:10:51.039537+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:22:34.340601
License: Public Domain

MANDERINO, Justice
(dissenting).
The crime of receiving stolen goods requires proof that appellant knew that the property possessed was stolen. 18 C.P.S.A. § 3925. Such knowledge on the part of appellant is an essential element of the crime, in addition to the elements of appellant’s possession of the property and the theft of the property prior to appellant’s possession. Since due process mandates “proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime . . . ”, In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 1073, 25 L.Ed.2d 368, 375 (1970), appellant’s knowledge must therefore be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
As stated in Commonwealth v. Henderson, 451 Pa. 452, 304 A.2d 154 (1973):
' “The element of appellant’s guilty knowledge may be established by direct evidence of knowledge or by circumstantial evidence from which it can be inferred that appellant had reasonable cause to know that the property was stolen. If from the circumstantial evidence, it can be inferred that the appellant had reasonable cause to know, a final inference can reasonably be made that he in fact knew that the property was stolen.” (Emphasis in original.) 451 Pa. at 455, 304 A.2d 156.
The majority maintains that the evidence at trial established sufficient circumstances to support the inference of appellant’s guilty knowledge. It relies on a United States Supreme Court case, Barnes v. United States, *373412 U.S. 837, 93 S.Ct. 2357, 37 L.Ed.2d 380 (1973), to support the proposition that the trier of fact may infer guilty knowledge from unexplained possession. Barnes, however, does not hold that guilty knowledge may be inferred from unexplained possession alone. Barnes requires that before such an inference can be drawn, there must be a rational connection between it and the surrounding circumstances. As the dissenting Justices in Barnes pointed out, the burden cannot be shifted to the accused. The prosecution must prove all elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. If the prosecution can rely solely on unexplained possession, a burden is imposed upon the accused to explain that possession in order to avoid conviction. Unexplained possession is simply another way of saying to the jury that a defendant could have but failed to present a defense and that this may be considered in determining guilt. Such an instruction places an unconstitutional burden on the accused. The burden must remain on the prosecution to establish sufficient circumstances, other than the possession of stolen property by appellant, to support the necessary element of appellant’s guilty knowledge. Since I do not agree with the majority that the evidence introduced at trial was sufficient to support the inference of appellant’s guilty knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt, I must dissent.
The relevant facts show that appellant was found in possession of a stolen automobile twelve days after the automobile had been reported missing; that appellant could produce neither a license nor registration; and that there was damage to the interior of the car, as well as to the front and rear bumpers. Furthermore, the majority also infers an attempt by appellant to avoid pursuit from the fact that appellant drove the car through a gas station while being pursued by the police. However, as there was no indication that appellant knew that he was being followed by police, since the police were in an *374unmarked car, any inference of flight is incorrect and indeed irrelevant.
The situation in this case is similar to that in Henderson, supra, where it was said:
“The possession of an automobile which does not belong to the driver is not so strange, unusual, or unique that it points to guilty knowledge as more likely than innocent knowledge on the part of the driver. The borrowing or leasing of an automobile for temporary use is not an uncommon occurrence. If every person possessing an automobile which they did not own would be held accountable as having knowledge that the automobile was stolen, every person who borrowed a car would be in peril of a conviction for receiving stolen property.”
451 Pa. at 457, 304 A.2d at 157.
I therefore dissent from the majority opinion.