noting that the jury determines credibility and is free to disbelieve a defendant's innocent explanation of his possession of stolen property, even if the explanation is not impeached
How later courts described this case
- noting that the jury determines credibility and is free to disbelieve a defendant's innocent explanation of his possession of stolen property, even if the explanation is not impeached
- change in name of corporate owner
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by State v. Arnold, 1978 Mo. LEXIS 349 (1978)
It is argued that Cobb is distinguishable on two grounds.
The opinion
DONNELLY, Judge
(dissenting).
I would apply the following rules to the facts in this case:
(1) A recent, unexplained, and exclusive possession of stolen property will support an inference of the guilt of the possessor.
(2) To “create an inference of guilt, the term ‘exclusive’ does not mean that the possession must be separate from all others * * State v. Oliver, 355 Mo. 173, 176 , 195 S.W.2d 484, 486 .
(3) However, in situations where joint possession is claimed, there must be other evidence to connect defendant with the offense. State v. Oliver, supra; State v. Crawford, 59 Utah 39 , 201 P. 1030 .
In my opinion, the “other evidence” adduced in this case is not sufficient to show defendant participated in the burglary.
I respectfully dissent.
SEILER, J., concurs.