FRED INMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that unexplained possession of recently stolen goods, coupled with admissions, is legally sufficient to support a conviction for receiving stolen goods.
Appellant was convicted of receiving stolen goods after admitting to driving with an accomplice who stole the property, and knowing it was stolen. The…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Corroboration Of Admissions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was convicted of receiving stolen goods in violation of D.C.Code § 22-2205 (Supp. V, 1951 ed.), the trial court having dismissed sua sponte a prior count of the indictment charging grand larceny. A police officer testified that appellant admitted, after his arrest, that he and one Arnold were driving near the scene of the theft the night the property was stolen, that Arnold left the car and shortly thereafter returned with the property, and that he (appellant) knew the property had been stolen. On this appeal appellant contends there was no corroborative evidence to support his admissions, and hence the admissions were legally insufficient to warrant an inference that appellant “received” the property. See Opper v. United States, 1954, 348 U.S. 84, 89-92, 75 S.Ct. 158, 99 L.Ed. 101.
There was abundant testimony that appellant had the stolen goods in his possession shortly after the theft took place, and retained such possession while attempting, with others, to sell the property. Unexplained possession of known stolen goods is a forceful circumstance which supports the admitted fact of receipt1 to such an extent that the jury would be justified in concluding the admissions were true. Opper v. United States, supra, 348 U.S. at page 93, 75 S.Ct. at page 164; Fountain v. United States, 1956, 98 U.S.App.D.C. 389, 236 F. 2d 684. Whether this evidence would likewise support a conviction of larceny is immaterial, for one who is technically guilty of larceny but was not present at the moment when the larceny occurred may be convicted of receiving stolen goods. Weisberg v. United States, 1919, 49 App.D.C. 28, 258 F. 284.
We have reviewed appellant’s assertions that the trial court committed error in instructing the jury and that the pretrial procedure deprived appellant of his 6th Amendment rights, but we find no error with respect to either of these points.
The judgment of conviction is
Affirmed.
. Some jurisdictions hold unexplained possession of goods recently stolen raises a presumption that such goods have been illegally received. See, e. g., Commonwealth v. Kaufman, 1955, 179 Pa.Super. 247, 116 A. 2d 316; Simmons v. State, 1951, 36 Ala.App. 39, 53 So. 2d 398. Cf. Bollenbach v. United States, 1946, 328 U.S. 607, 66 S.Ct. 402, 90 L.Ed. 350.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bray v. United States, 306 F.2d 743 (D.C. Cir. 1962)
-
Robertson v. United States, 364 F.2d 702 (D.C. Cir. 1966)
Authorities Cited
- Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84 (U.S. 1954)
- Bollenbach v. United States, 326 U.S. 607 (U.S. 1946)
- Fountain v. United States, 236 F.2d 684 (D.C. Cir. 1956)