Court Opinion

ID: 4002876
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-06 11:04:24.661583+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:54:04.544926
License: Public Domain

I can add nothing to the logic of Judge Maxwell, and would merely support it by a seemingly unbroken line of authority. "In all cases, knowledge at the time the goods are received that they have been stolen is absolutely essential; butknowledge may always be inferred from the circumstances, and issufficiently shown if the circumstances proven are such as musthave made the recipient *Page 676 believe they were stolen." Clark's Cr. Law (3d Ed.), Sec. 109, pp. 381-2. "It was not necessary for the state to prove that the defendant had personal knowledge of the larceny in the sense that he was present as a witness thereof. It was sufficient if the facts and circumstances known to him were sufficient to satisfy him or cause him to believe the goods were stolen. In such cases belief is tantamount to knowledge within the meaning of the statute, and such is the uniformholding of the courts." State v. Van Treese, 198 Iowa 984,200 N.W. 570, 571. Accord: Bishop on Cr. Law (9th Ed.) sec. 1138; Wharton's Cr. Law (12th Ed.) secs. 1231-1232; 2 Brill Cyc. Cr. Law, sec. 930; Desty Am. Cr. Law, sec. 147-d; State v.Goldstrohm, 84 W. Va. 129, 134, 99 S.E. 248; Collins v. State,33 Ala. 434, 73 Am. Dec. 426; Meath v. State, 174 Wis. 80,182 N.W. 334; Ellison v. Com., 190 Ky. 305, 227 S.W. 458; State v.Druxinman, 34 Wash. 257, 75 P. 814; State v. Gargare,88 N.J. Law, 389, 95 A. 625; State v. Frankel, 1 W. W. Harr. (31 Del.) 372, 114 A. 608; Bowers v. State, 196 Ind. 4, 146 N.E. 818;State v. Alpert, 88 Vt. 191, 92 A. 32, 33; Webb v. State,19 Okla. Crim. 450, 200 P. 719; People v. Kohn, 290 Ill. 410,125 N.E. 293; Henze v. State, 154 Md. 332, 140 A. 218;Birdsong v. State, 120 Ga. 850, 48 S.E. 329; Com. v. Leonard,140 Mass. 473, 4 N.E. 96, 54 Am. Rep. 485; People v. Mullis,200 Mich. 505, 166 N.W. 859; State v. Gordon, 105 Minn. 217,117 N.W. 483, 15 Ann. Cas. 897; Frank v. State, 67 Miss. 125,6 So. 842; State v. Richmond, 186 Mo. 71, 84 S.W. 880,884; State v.Rountree, 80 S.C. 387, 61 S.E. 1072, 22 L.R.A. (N.S.) 833; State v. Lewark, 106 Kan. 184,186 P. 1002; Murio v. State, 31 Tex.Crim. R., 20 S.W. 356.