Opinion
NO. 791OSC587
Filed 4 December 1979
Receiving Stolen Goods 7 — felonious possession of stolen goods — insufficient verdict Judgment is arrested in a prosecution for felonious possession of stolen goods where one interpretation of the written verdict submitted to the jury by the court would permit the jury to find defendant guilty if it should find that the property was worth more than $200.00 without regard to whether defendant knew or had reasonable grounds to believe that the property had been stolen, and where the jury's verdict of "Guilty of possession of stolen property" failed to find defendant guilty of any crime.
APPEAL by defendant from Lee, Judge. Judgment entered 18 January 1979 in Superior Court, WAKE County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 13 November 1979.
Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Nonnie F. Midgett, for the State.
Emanuel and Thompson, by W. Hugh Thompson, for the defendant.
Judge HEDRICK concurring in result.
Judge WELLS joins in the concurring opinion.
Defendant was tried, upon indictments proper in form, for breaking and entering and larceny and also for felonious possession of stolen goods. The jury acquitted him of the breaking and entering and larceny charges, but convicted him of felonious possession of stolen goods. He was sentenced to not less than three nor more than five years' imprisonment, suspended for five years upon specified conditions. From judgment imposing sentence, defendant appeals, assigning error.
When the trial judge submitted possible verdicts to the jury in this case, the one for the offense of possession of stolen property read as follows:
Guilty of possession of stolen property knowing of [sic] having reasonable grounds to believe that the property was stolen pursuant to a breaking or entering or that the property was worth more than $200.00 OR Not Guilty.
This proposed verdict would allow the jury to convict defendant of felonious possession of stolen property if the jury should find that the property was worth more than $200.00, without regard to whether defendant knew or had reasonable grounds to believe that the property was in fact stolen. The verdict returned by the jury and signed by its foreman merely recites that defendant was found guilty of possession of stolen property, without further stating the basis of the verdict. Because of the ambiguity of the proposed verdict as submitted to the jury, and in view of the fact that the jury's verdict as returned does not in any way dispel the cloud of ambiguity hovering over this matter, we arrest the judgment entered therein.
Judgment in 78CRS71736 arrested.
Judges HEDRICK and WELLS concur in the result.