Fortson v. State

919 N.E.2d 1136 (2010)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Sosh parked his 1993 Chevy S-10 pick-up truck in the parking lot of a Big Lots store. He left his keys in the ignition and went inside. When he exited the store thirty to forty-five minutes later his truck was gone. Sosh called his wife from a nearby pay phone; she picked him up; and after the couple returned home Sosh called the police. Sosh reported the truck missing. Around midnight he received a call that the truck had been recovered. At around 11:20 p.m. Officer Matthews was on routine patrol when he saw a vehicle matching the description of Sosh's missing truck exit the parking lot of a motel located approximately two miles from Big Lots. Officer Matthews followed the truck until it pulled into the parking lot of another motel and came to a stop. Officer Matthews pulled behind the truck and activated his emergency lights. D was identified as the driver and noted there was also a passenger in the vehicle. The police ordered the pair out of the truck and placed D in handcuffs. The passenger was released without questioning. When D asked why he was being arrested, Officer Matthews told him that 'he was in a stolen vehicle, and he was being arrested for Auto Theft. . . .' D was irate and complaining that 'it was a racially motivated stop, and just becoming more and more irate with me.' D was very belligerent and wasn't very cooperative. D 'did imply that he did not steal the truck.' D yelled that he didn't steal it and that it was loaned to him to use. D was charged with receiving stolen property. D was tried in absentia. Sosh testified that he did not know D and did not give him permission to drive the truck. He also testified that although the truck was not damaged in any way, when he retrieved it there were a number of empty beer cans and an empty liquor bottle in the bed of the truck that did not belong to him. D was found guilty. D appealed. D claimed P failed to show that he 'knew that the pickup truck he was driving was stolen.' The Court of Appeals reversed. The court held that the unexplained possession of recently stolen property may be sufficient to support a conviction for theft; however, if P charges receiving stolen property, the unexplained possession of recently stolen property must be accompanied with additional circumstances supporting an inference that the accused knew the property was stolen. P appealed.