RECEIVER OF STOLEN GOODS. By statutory provision, the receiver of stolen goods, knowing them to have been stolen, may be punished as the principal, in perhaps all the states.
To make this offence complete, the goods received must have been stolen, they must have been received by the defendant, and he must know that they had been stolen.
The original' theft must be proved against the receiver just 'as strictly as if the thief were being tried for larceny, but only by such evidence as is admissible against the re ceiver. A confession by the thief when charged with the Crime is inadmissible; 18 Cox 470; and the jury must disregard the fact that they had just heard the thief plead guilty ; Odgers, C. L. 372. The thief may be called as a witness for the prosecution, and if he admits his guilt, that is some evi dence to go to the jury, but it is entitled to but little weight if uncorroborated ; 4 F. & F. 43. Receiving goods stolen abroad does not constitute the offence; but otherwise by act of 1896 in England.
The goods stolen must have been received by the defendant. Prima facie, if stolen goods are found in a man's house, he, not being the thief, is a receiver; 1 Den. Cr. Cas. 601. And though there Is proof of a criminal intent to receive, and a knowledge that the goods were stolen, if the exclusive possession still remains in the thief, a conviction for receiving cannot be sustained; 2 id. 37. So a principal in the first degree, particeps ii imvnis, cannot at the same time be treated as a receiver ; 2 id. 459. Where a prisoner is charged in two counts with stealing and re ceiving, the jury may return a verdict of guilty on the latter count, if warranted by the evidence, although the evidence is alsp consistent with the prisoner having been a principal in the second degree in the steal ing; Bell, Cr. Cas. 20. See Whiting v. State, 48 Ohio St. 220, 27 N. E. 96. But a person having a joint possession with the thief may be convicted as a receiver; Dearsl. 494. The actual manual possession or touch pf the goods by the defendant, however, is not nec essary to the completion of the offence of receiving; it is sufficient if they are in the actual possession of a person over whom the defendant has a control, so that they would be forthcoming if he ordered it; id. 494; as of a servant, to the master's knowledge; 72 J. P. 451.
Husband and wife were indicted jointly for receiving: The jury found both' guilty, and found, also, that the wife raceived the goods without the control or knowledge of the husband, and apart from him, and that "he afterwards adopted his wife's receipt."
It was held that this finding did not war rant the conviction of the husband; Dearsl. & B. 329. A wife could not be convicted for receiving from her husband goods which she knew he had stolen; Odgers, C. L. 373.
The offence of receiving stolen property involves a criminal intent as a material ele ment, such as an intent to aid the thief, of obtaining a reward for restoring it to the owner, or in some way to derive profit from the act; Arcia v. State, 26 Tex. App. 193, 9 S. W. 685.
It is almost always difficult to prove guil ty knowledge ; and that must, in general, be collected from circumstances. If such cir cumstances are proved which to a person of common understanding and prudence, and situated as the prisoner was, must have sat isfied him that they were stolen, this is suffi cient. For example, the receipt of watches, jewelry, large quantities of money, bundles of clothes of various kinds, or personal prop erty of any sort, to' a considerable value, from boys or persons destitute of property and without any lawful means of acquiring them, and specially if bought at untimely hours, the mind can arrive at no other con clusion than that they were stolen. This is further confirmed if they have been bought at an under-value, concealed, the marks de faced, and falsehood resorted to in account ing for the possession of them ; 2 Russ. Cr. 253; 1 Post. & F. 51; Whart. Cr. L. 983, 986. See Huggins v. People, 135 Ill. 243, 25 N. E. 1002, 25 Am. St. Rep. 357. Evidence that other stolen goods were found in de fendant's possession is admissible to show guilty knowledge; State v. Crawford, 38 S. C. 330, 17 S. E. 36.
At common law, receiving stolen goods, knowing them to haie been stolen, is a mis demeanor ; 2 Russ. Cr. 253. But in Massa chusetts it has been held to partake so far of the nature of felony that if a constable has reasonable grounds to suspect one of the crime of receiving or aiding in the conceal ment of stolen goods, knowing them to be stolen, he may without warrant arrest the supposed offender ; Rohan v. Sawin, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 281.
A current coin, which•has not passed into circulation, may be sold as a curiosity and, if stolen from its owner by the vendor, who is convicted of larceny, an order of restitu tion may be made against the purchaser. Sentble otherwise, if the thief has dealt with it as current coin and passed it into circula tion; [1899] 2 Q. B. 111.
See [1892] 2 Q. B. 597 ; RECENT POSSESSION or STOLEN GOODS; also a note in 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 833.