Court Opinion

ID: 9714912
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:48:58.164812+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:29.638400
License: Public Domain

MAY, Judge,
concurring with separate opinion.
The thrust of Gonzalez' argument is that the evidence is insufficient because the State had no evidence linking him to the car during the twenty-eight days it was missing. I agree with the majority that Gonzalez case is distinguishable from Shelby v. State, 875 N.E.2d 381 (Ind.Ct.App.2007), trans. denied; Buntin v. State, 838 N.E.2d 1187 (Ind.Ct.App.2005); and Trotter v. State, 838 N.E.2d 553 (Ind.Ct.App.2005), because Gonzalez was charged with theft of the parts rather than the initial theft of the car. Therefore, contrary to Gonzalez argument, the State did not have to prove he was in possession of the car from the date it was stolen.
I write separately to clarify that, although the theft of the parts may be considered recent, Gonzalez's possession of the parts does not appear to be unexplained and exclusive. See Shelby, 875 N.E.2d at 385 ("The mere unexplained exclusive possession of recently stolen property will sustain a conviction of theft and burglary."). However, I agree that there is sufficient cireumstantial evidence Gonzalez knew the car was stolen and intended to deprive the rightful owner of its value or use. See op. at 341-42. Therefore, I concur.