Court Opinion

ID: 9739339
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:12:34.762518+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:11.746098
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
DeBruler, J.
I joined in the dissent of Judge Amos Jackson in Bolton v. State (1970), 254 Ind. 648, 261 N. E. 2d 841, cited by the majority. That dissent applies with equal vigor here. In that case the evidence first placed the defendant in possession of a tractor, at least a week after it had been stolen. The Court in affirming Bolton’s conviction held:
“We hold that the State had made its prima facie case before the trial court when it presented evidence of exclusive possession in appellants shortly after the theft of the tractor. The weight of this evidence was to be determined -by the trier of fact and not by this court. At the point in the trial when the state had made its prima facie case, if the appellants had evidence which would have explained their possession it was their privilege to present the same. In the absence of such explanation, the trier was entitled to believe the evidence presented by the state in making its prima facie case. (See Durrett, supra.) ”
We dissented to that holding in part on the ground that evidence of possession of stolen goods, a week after their *681theft, standing alone, would be insufficient to sustain a conviction for the theft of those goods. In like fashion, I would hold in the case at bar that the jury was not entitled to draw the inference that the defendant was guilty of stealing the saddles, solely from his possession of them two days after they had been stolen.
Note.—Reported in 266 N. E. 2d 219.