Case Studies
Chapter 06: Presumptions, Inferences, and Stipulations
Overview — Based on: Williams v. State, 210 Ark. App. 759 (2010).
An Arkansas trial court convicted Thelma Williams Jr. of the offense of theft by receiving [stolen property]. Due to his status as a habitual offender, he was sentenced to five years in the Arkansas Department of Correction. Williams argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. At trial, the evidence revealed that four electric saws, valued at $1,300.00, were stolen from Leonard Johnson’s home on the morning of October 8, 2009. Shortly thereafter, Johnson learned from a neighbor that the saws were probably located about a block and a half away at a neighboring house. About 45 minutes later, when Johnson went to the named house to investigate, he found his saws in a shopping cart located only inches from the appellant, Mr. Williams, who was asleep on the front porch. The cart was in the yard right next to a low porch next to Mr. Williams. Only appellant Williams was present with the stolen property when Johnson, the owner, discovered the saws.
Appellant denied having any connection to the stolen property and testified that he went to sleep on the porch the night before and that the cart full of stolen saws was not there at that time. He contended that the police officer and the owner of the saws, Mr. Johnson, were both lying about his location being next to the stolen property. According to Arkansas law, an individual commits the offense of theft by receiving [stolen property] if he receives, retains, or disposes of stolen property of another person knowing that the property was stolen or having good reason to believe the property was stolen. Under Arkansas law, the unexplained possession of recently stolen property gives rise to a presumption that the possessor has knowledge that the property was stolen, but the presumption is rebuttable and a jury or judge is free to ignore if it would choose to do so. The prosecutor must introduce proof of the “basic fact,” the exclusive possession of recently stolen property, and the “inferred or presumed fact” that the defendant had knowledge that the property was stolen arises. What this Arkansas presumption suggests is that it operates primarily as an inference that the defendant had knowledge that the property was stolen.