Smith v. State

The boat speakers, which the defendant pawned, bore no signs that would excite suspicion that they had been stolen in the mind of an ordinary prudent person.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Following a jury trial, Charles Smith was convicted of theft by receiving stolen property.1 He appeals his conviction, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict, which asserted that the State failed to produce evidence sufficient to show that he knew the subject property was stolen. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse Smith’s conviction. “On appeal, the standard of review for denial of a motion for directed verdict is the same as that for determining the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction.” Punctuation omitted. Chambers v. State .2 When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, and the defendant no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence. Short v. State .3 We do not weigh evidence or determine witness credibility, but only determine if the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find the defendant guilty of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia .4

So viewed, the evidence shows that on September 16, 2004, Wade Harris discovered that someone had broken into his boat, which was moored at his neighborhood’s community dock, and had stolen several pieces of stereo equipment, including two speakers. Harris notified the police, and an officer came out to the dock that day to investigate the matter. Several weeks later, Harris’s brother was patronizing a local pawn shop when he noticed Harris’s stolen boat speakers, which he recognized from having helped Harris install them, on display in the shop. He immediately called Harris, who met him at the pawn shop and confirmed that the speakers were the same ones that had been stolen from his boat; the speakers bore some familiar decals, as well as identifiable scratches. Harris then called the police, who learned from the pawn shop’s owner and the owner’s records that the speakers had been pawned on October 13 by Charles Smith.

Smith v. State

The boat speakers, which the defendant pawned, bore no signs that would excite suspicion that they had been stolen in the mind of an ordinary prudent person.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report