Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama; August 29, 2008; Alabama; State Appellate Court
J.C.C., a juvenile, was adjudicated delinquent for receiving a stolen vehicle, violating Ala.Code 1975 § 13A-8-17. He appealed on grounds of insufficient evidence. Initially, the appellate court upheld the juvenile court's ruling, citing that J.C.C. had not preserved his claim. However, the Alabama Supreme Court later determined that he had preserved his claim, reversing the appellate court's decision and remanding the case for further proceedings.
In the juvenile court, J.C.C. contended that the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate he possessed, had dominion, or controlled the stolen vehicle. The stipulated facts revealed that on December 5, 2005, J.C.C. was seen in the front passenger seat of a stolen 2000 Honda Accord, valued at $5,000, which had been stolen during a robbery. Witness Courtney Lovell Davenport observed J.C.C. in the vehicle and contacted the vehicle's owner, Antonio Howard, before following the stolen vehicle to its stop. The driver, Dominique Kemp, fled upon stopping but was later apprehended, while J.C.C. remained in the car and was subsequently arrested.
The trial court, based on the stipulated facts, found J.C.C. guilty of the charge. On appeal, J.C.C. argued that the State failed to establish a prima facie case, asserting that being a mere passenger did not constitute control over the vehicle. According to Alabama law, a person is guilty of receiving stolen property if they intentionally receive or retain it while knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe it is stolen, unless they intend to return it to the owner.
In B.B. v. State, 778 So.2d 258 (Ala.Crim.App.2000), the appellant, a minor named B.B., was adjudicated as a delinquent for receiving stolen property (first degree) and sentenced to the custody of the Department of Youth Services. The case stemmed from an incident on January 14, 2000, when Celestine Horton reported her car stolen after leaving a friend’s house. Officer Corey Upton later spotted a car matching Horton’s description, leading to a chase in which B.B. was a passenger. After the car crashed, B.B. was apprehended and identified as being in the stolen vehicle.
B.B. contended that the evidence did not sufficiently prove his possession, dominion, or control over the stolen vehicle. The court referenced legal definitions: a person commits the crime of receiving stolen property if they knowingly receive or retain it, and possession of recently stolen goods serves as prima facie evidence of such knowledge. However, the court noted that the State did not present evidence that established B.B.’s control over the vehicle, as the prosecution only indicated that he fled after the car wrecked and offered no evidence to clarify who was driving. Consequently, the court concluded that the evidence was insufficient to support the delinquency adjudication, emphasizing the necessity for proof of control over the stolen property.
The term 'receiving' encompasses acquiring possession, control, title, or taking a security interest in property. To convict someone of receiving stolen property, it must be demonstrated that the defendant had control over the property. Control does not necessitate actual physical possession; instead, it is assessed based on surrounding circumstances. For instance, mere presence in a vehicle containing stolen items is insufficient for a conviction unless there is evidence of knowledge of the stolen status and control over the property. In the discussed case, the appellant, a passenger in a stolen vehicle, lacked evidence of control over the vehicle or knowledge of the stolen guns within it. Consequently, the court reversed the adjudication of delinquency for receiving stolen property, indicating that the State failed to prove a crucial element of the offense. The judgment is reversed, and a verdict is rendered in favor of the appellant.
