Court Opinion

ID: 9575088
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:11:32.880238+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:47:58.292724
License: Public Domain

Sognier, Chief Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent, for I find the evidence was insufficient to establish the essential element of “receiving” beyond a reasonable doubt.
“A person commits the offense of theft by receiving stolen property when he receives, disposes of, or retains stolen property which he knows or should know was stolen. . . . ‘Receiving’ means acquiring possession or control... of the property.” OCGA § 16-8-7 (a). Here, the record is devoid of evidence that appellant exercised or intended to exercise any dominion or control over the car or that he ever acquired possession of it. See Patterson v. State, 159 Ga. App. 290, 294 (283 SE2d 294) (1981); accord Owens v. State, 192 Ga. App. 335, 340 (1) (b) (384 SE2d 920) (1989). The “mere presence” of a defendant in the vicinity of stolen goods “furnishes only a bare suspicion” of guilt, and thus is insufficient to establish possession of stolen property. Williamson v. State, 134 Ga. App. 329, 331-332 (214 SE2d 415) (1975). Evidence that a defendant was present as a passenger in a stolen automobile, without more, is insufficient to establish possession or control. Williamson, supra; see Davis v. State, 154 Ga. App. 599 (269 SE2d 494) (1980); accord Abner v. State, 196 Ga. App. 752-753 (397 SE2d 36) (1990) (conviction for theft by receiving automobile upheld where defendant was in actual possession of car). I disagree with the majority that the circumstantial evidence that appellant, the automobile passenger, was observed to be “slumped” in the seat while Reese parked the car and entered a store was sufficient to constitute the *315type of “other incriminating circumstances” that would authorize a rejection of the general principle that “the driver of the [stolen] automobile [is] held prima facie in exclusive possession thereof.” Cheatham v. State, 57 Ga. App. 858, 860 (197 SE 70) (1938). The cases cited by the majority on this point, Fair v. State, 198 Ga. App. 437 (4) (401 SE2d 626) (1991) and Tolbert v. State, 194 Ga. App. 319 (390 SE2d 301) (1990), are distinguishable because in each of those cases there was incriminating evidence in addition to the fact that the defendants were passengers in recently stolen vehicles.
Decided December 4, 1991
Reconsideration denied December 19, 1991.
Ronald C. Conner, for appellant.
Robert F. Mumford, District Attorney, S. Dabney Yarbrough, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
Moreover, the evidence also did not meet the standard required for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence — i.e., that the evidence exclude every reasonable hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. See Patterson, supra at 294. The only evidence offered by the State to connect appellant to the stolen car was that he was a passenger in the car several hours after it was stolen. In response, appellant offered his explanation of his activities. “While neither the jury nor this court is required to accept these explanations, in the absence of any other valid explanation, we cannot ignore the only explanation offered. [Cit.] [I] conclude that there is no circumstantial evidence of guilt on which to base a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 295. Accordingly, I would reverse.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge McMurray joins in this dissent.