upholding the use of the doctrine of recent possession to show there was sufficient evidence that the defendant knew or should have known the property was stolen pursuant to a breaking or entering in support of charge of felonious possession of stolen property
How later courts described this case
- upholding the use of the doctrine of recent possession to show there was sufficient evidence that the defendant knew or should have known the property was stolen pursuant to a breaking or entering in support of charge of felonious possession of stolen property
- defendant entitled to instruction on misdemeanor possession of stolen goods where defendant presented evidence that the items had been given to him by a third person
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
GREENE, Judge,
concurring.
Although I fully concur with the majority, I write separately to more specifically address defendant’s recent possession argument. Defendant contends the recent possession doctrine cannot apply in this felonious larceny case because there is no evidence he knew or should have known “the goods had been feloniously stolen.” Although there is no evidence defendant knew or should have known the goods he possessed had been stolen in a breaking and entering of the T&J Variety Store, such showing is not necessary. Once it had been established the store had been broken into and entered and merchandise taken therefrom, defendant’s “recent possession of such stolen merchandise raises presumptions of fact that [he] is guilty of the larceny and of the breaking and entering.” State v. Allison, 265 N.C. 512, 516 , 144 S.E.2d 578, 580 (1965). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in submitting the felonious larceny charge to the jury.