Court Opinion

ID: 9603317
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:05:02.702504+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:38.057731
License: Public Domain

Justice MARTIN
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The majority opinion fairly states the facts and contains an accurate summation of the applicable law. To me, there is sufficient evidence, direct and circumstantial, to carry the case to the jury.
There is substantial evidence that the guns bought by the officers were stolen from the gun shop. The value of the guns is not in question. The only elements not conclusively proven are whether defendant had possession of the guns and whether he knew or had reasonable grounds to know that they were stolen. It can be safely stated that if defendant possessed the guns, he knew or had reasonable grounds to believe that they were stolen. The majority contends the evidence is insufficient to show possession of the guns by defendant.
This transaction occurs in a parking lot, not a garage. Yet, both times in question the defendant is there “working” on a car. There is some conversation about the keys to a car. On the second visit, the trunk to a car is opened and the stolen guns displayed. Defendant is about two car lengths away, probably no *181more than thirty-five feet. After the officer puts the guns into his car, the defendant agrees with him as to the price of $125 and the officer pays defendant $125 for the guns.
It is not necessary to put the guns into the hands of defendant to prove possession. Defendant did not have to see the removal of the guns to prove possession. Possession can be either actual or constructive. State v. Meyers, 190 N.C. 239, 129 S.E. 600 (1925). One has possession of stolen property within the meaning of the law when he has both the power and intent to control its disposition or use. The state may defeat a motion for nonsuit by presenting evidence which places the accused within such close juxtaposition to the stolen property as to justify the jury in concluding that the same was in his possession. State v. Harvey, 281 N.C. 1, 187 S.E. 2d 706 (1972). More than one person can have possession of the same stolen property at the same time. The state is not required to prove that defendant had the exclusive possession of the stolen guns. Proof of joint possession is sufficient. State v. Allen, 279 N.C. 406, 183 S.E. 2d 680 (1971).
Here we have evidence placing the defendant within a few feet of the stolen guns and showing that defendant confirmed and received the sale price for the guns. The confirmation and receiving of the sale price for the stolen guns, after they were placed in the officer’s car within some thirty-five feet of defendant, is sufficient substantial evidence to prove not only that defendant intended to control the disposition of the guns but that he actually did so. Why would payment have been made to and accepted by defendant unless he had at least joint possession of the stolen guns?
The evidence depicts a striking example of defendant and one or more other persons operating a business of selling stolen property. The others exhibited the property to the prospective buyer, and defendant took the purchase price. Criminals do not operate the same way as legitimate business people. The jury had no difficulty in applying the legal concepts of possession to the actions of the defendant. Common sense and reason, as well as the law, compel a jury resolution of the issue. The decision of the Court of Appeals should be affirmed.