Court Opinion

ID: 9576302
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:23:03.396553+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:05:03.833054
License: Public Domain

Justice Martin
dissenting.
Whether the doctrine of possession of recently stolen property is sufficient to repel a motion for nonsuit must be determined on the facts and circumstances of each case. State v. Blackmon, 6 N.C. App. 66, 169 S.E. 2d 472 (1969). Here, the evidence in the light most favorable to the state discloses: Mr. Dill’s property (about $4,000 in value) was stolen sometime between 18 April and 16 May 1983; defendant was found in possession of some of the property on 16 May; he told the officers that the property belonged to him and moved it into a house; the next day he sold the TV to a Mr. Hamby; defendant testified that he had never seen the TV until 16 May when it was in the trunk of the car; the antenna wire on the TV had been cut when the officer saw it in the car; also in the car defendant was driving was a blue window fan, towels, linens, and other property; defendant and his girlfriend drove to Florida in the car immediately after the TV was sold on 17 May; when defendant was arrested in Florida on 30 May, the towels and linens were still in the car; a piece of broken fiberglass was found by the officers at the scene of the theft where the metal gate had been pushed open; this fiberglass matched a broken place in the fiberglass of the car defendant was driving when stopped by the officer.
The majority notes, and relies upon its perception, that the stolen articles are of the type “normally and frequently traded in lawful channels.” While that may be true of the stolen property when the items are considered separately, such diverse property as found in defendant’s possession is rarely, if ever, sold collectively. Under such circumstances, the inference engendered by the doctrine survives a longer time interval. Blackmon, 6 N.C. App. 66, 169 S.E. 2d 472. The time interval in Blackmon was twenty-seven days, only one day less than the maximum of *47twenty-eight days under the evidence of this case, and when the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the state, as we must, the inference is that the time interval was even shorter. It is unlikely that the pushed-over metal gate on Mr. Dill’s driveway could have existed for a long time unnoticed. The amount and diversity of the stolen property made it difficult for it to be assimilated into lawful trade channels. At least the towels and linens still remained in the possession of defendant in the car when he was arrested in Florida.
This appeal is very similar to State v. Gove, 289 A. 2d 679 (Me. 1972). In Gove, the victim closed her house for the winter on 29 November 1970, and a break-in was discovered on 27 January 1971. Defendant, when arrested in a car on 27 January, had possession of various items of the stolen property, including pieces of china and a radio. As here, defendant Gove was in someone else’s car. The Maine court held that the passage of fifty-nine days was not sufficient to prevent the jury finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the property found in defendant’s possession was recently stolen.
So in the case before us, the passage of twenty-eight days (at the most) is not sufficient to foreclose the jury finding that the property in defendant’s possession was recently stolen. Furthermore, defendant’s lame and contradictory attempt to explain his possession of the stolen property is severely damaged by defendant’s lack of credibility arising from his four prior convictions of breaking or entering and larceny and a conviction for forgery.
I find that the doctrine of recent possession, the placing at the crime scene of the car defendant was driving, defendant’s continued possession of some of the property in the car when he was arrested, defendant’s flight to Florida immediately following his sale of the television, and defendant’s contradictory attempt to explain his possession of the property are sufficient to repel defendant’s motion for directed verdict.
I vote to find no error in defendant’s trial.