Opinion
43022.
SUBMITTED SEPTEMBER 7, 1967.
DECIDED NOVEMBER 20, 1967.
Receiving stolen goods. Fulton Superior Court. Before Judge Boykin, Emeritus.
Howard Moore, Jr., for appellant.
Lewis R. Slaton, Solicitor General, J. Walter LeCraw, Paul Ginsberg, Amber W. Anderson, for appellee.
1. Knowledge that goods are stolen is an essential element of the crime of receiving stolen goods. Sanford v. State, 4 Ga. App. 449 ( 61 S.E. 741). Where one admits buying and receiving goods shown by undisputed evidence to have been stolen, the burden is still upon the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the transaction occurred with guilty knowledge on the part of the accused. Chambers v. State, 94 Ga. App. 531 ( 95 S.E.2d 326); McGill v. State, 106 Ga. App. 482, 483 ( 127 S.E.2d 332). In most cases scienter is not susceptible of direct proof. "Circumstances may convict of the defendant's knowledge, as well as actual and direct proof. . . The circumstances, the time, the secrecy, all the transactions before, at the time and afterwards, may be brought to bear upon what was the knowledge of the receiver. . . Knowledge may well be deduced from conduct and behavior, the character of the person from whom received, and the kind of goods." Cobb v. State, 76 Ga. 664, 666. See also Licette v. State, 75 Ga. 253, 257; Waldrop v. State, 47 Ga. App. 849, 853 ( 171 S.E. 840); Hardy v. State, 100 Ga. App. 88 (1) ( 110 S.E.2d 82). Here, the defendant's flight is one of numerous circumstances tending to establish his consciousness of guilt. See Brooks v. State, 98 Ga. App. 13, 15 ( 104 S.E.2d 620).
The evidence, though circumstantial, was sufficient to authorize defendant's conviction of knowingly receiving stolen goods.
2. The record shows that defendant was shot by the arresting officers and taken directly to the hospital where he remained for medical treatment until after indictment. Under these circumstances no commitment hearing was necessary. Cannon v. Grimes, 223 Ga. 35 ( 153 S.E.2d 445).
3. The defendant's indictment and trial for receiving stolen goods were not premature, where Count 2 of the indictment alleged that the principal thief had not been tried or convicted for the reason that he was unknown to the grand jurors and could not be apprehended; nor was this count of the indictment defective for the reason that it failed to allege that the principal thief was under 17 years of age or insane. See Code §§ 26-2620 and 26-2621; Licette v. State, 75 Ga. 253, 256, supra; Carnes v. State, 115 Ga. App. 387, 389 (2) ( 154 S.E.2d 781). Grounds 3 and 4 of the enumeration of errors are without merit.
4. The first ground of the enumeration is moot. See Prather v. State, 223 Ga. 431 ( 155 S.E.2d 862).
Judgment affirmed. Pannell and Whitman, JJ., concur.
SUBMITTED SEPTEMBER 7, 1967 — DECIDED NOVEMBER 20, 1967.
Defendant was indicted for larceny of an automobile in Count 1 of the indictment; and in Count 2 he was indicted for knowingly receiving stolen goods (the same automobile), stolen by a person unknown to the grand jurors. On the trial the jury acquitted defendant of the larceny charge and convicted him of the offense of receiving stolen goods.
The evidence showed that on the morning of June 25, 1966, defendant and a companion went to a used car lot operated by John Smith Company in Atlanta and looked at cars on display including a maroon 1963 Ford Galaxie two-door sport coupe bearing the serial number 3A 66Z 188570 and having no license tag. After defendant and his companion had departed, the manager of the company's used car operation discovered that the 1963 Ford, which had been parked on the lot with keys in the ignition switch, was missing. On August 20, 1966, while driving a 1963 Ford of the same color and body style as the missing car, defendant collided with another automobile. The identification plate on the door facing of the wrecked Ford had been removed, but another identification plate affixed to the firewall identified the vehicle as the missing car. It bore a 1966 Georgia license tag which defendant had purchased on June 30, 1966, representing on the tag application that the serial number of the vehicle was 2U 62Z 11441 and that he had purchased it from Dandy Service Company. Defendant's wife testified that she had accompanied defendant to "a place that sells cars" to buy the car but that she was unable to identify the name or location of the dealer. Defendant testified that he bought the car from two men on Moreland Avenue but did not know their names and was unable to locate them although he dickered with them "two or three" days before buying the car, that he had a bill of sale showing he bought the car from Dandy Service Company, and that he had been unable to find the bill of sale since the collision. Police officers testified that they had been unable to locate a dealer operating in Atlanta as "Dandy Service Company." On September 6, 1966, when accosted by police officers who advised defendant they had a warrant for his arrest for automobile larceny, defendant ran until brought down by police gunfire.