Ingram: Companion site for Criminal Evidence, 11th Edition


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.

Questions

  1. As a general rule, does the exclusive possession of recently stolen property give rise to a presumption or inference that the possessor had knowledge that the property was stolen?

    Correct Answer

    Yes. Although some courts would not call the possession of recently stolen property presumptive evidence that the possessor knew the property was stolen, many courts still adhere to this concept. One must keep in mind that conclusive presumptions are virtually unconstitutional and that a presumption such as this really operates as an inference because the finder of fact is not bound to infer or presume that the property was stolen. See Chapter 6, Section 6.11.

  2. Under the facts of this case, where the defendant appeared to be in exclusive control of personal property that had clearly been recently stolen, is it permissible to infer from this situation that the defendant knew the property was stolen recently?

    Correct Answer

    Yes. According to the trial court, the stolen saws were recovered approximately 45 minutes after the owner discovered that they had been stolen, and they were found in the possession of the defendant who had no credible explanation for their presence. The trial court did not consider him believable, and it was not required to believe his testimony concerning his lack of knowledge of the source of the saws.

  3. Would some courts determine that the presumption or inference in this case would be insufficient without some corroboration to support a guilty verdict?

    Correct Answer

    Yes. California courts take the position that proof of the possession of recently stolen property does not give rise to a sufficient inference or a presumption that would be sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. California would require some level of corroboration concerning the fact that the property was recently stolen and that the defendant could be charged with knowledge of that fact. See Chapter 6. Section 6.11 or CALJIC 2.15 (2005).

Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.