61 P.2d 842
No. 14,024.Supreme Court of Colorado.
Decided October 5, 1936.
Plaintiff in error was convicted of receiving stolen property.
Affirmed.
On Application for Supersedeas.
1. CRIMINAL LAW — Receiving Stolen Property — Evidence. In a criminal prosecution for receiving stolen property, proof of possession by defendant is not essential, and in the present case, exclusion of offered testimony that defendant’s person and premises were searched and property not found, held not to be error.
Error to the District Court of Jefferson County, Hon. Samuel W. Johnson, Judge.
Mr. JOEL E. STONE, Mr. CHARLES E. COUGHLIN, for plaintiff in error.
Mr. BYRON G. ROGERS, Attorney General, Mr. WALTER F. SCHERER, Assistant, for the people.In Department.
MR. JUSTICE BURKE, sitting for MR. CHIEF JUSTICE CAMPBELL, delivered the opinion of the court.
PLAINTIFF in error, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was convicted of receiving stolen property and sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of three to four years. To review that judgment he prosecutes this writ and requests final disposition of the cause on application for supersedeas.
There are but three assignments of error, which are
Page 253
argued as one and admittedly covered by the contention that the court erroneously excluded evidence that at a time and place where defendant’s person and premises were searched the property was not found. The only authority cited in the briefs is 10 R. C. L. 925-927.
It is conceded by defendant’s counsel that possession of the stolen goods is not an essential element of proof of receiving, but contended that nonpossession tends to negative receiving. Instances of the kind may be conceived but this is not one of them. Here the people did not prove or claim possession, but did claim and offer evidence that a part of the goods had been sold and the remainder stored elsewhere. Hence the rejected testimony was immaterial. We get no aid from the authority cited. The general rule is here applicable. Evidence of defendant’s guilt was overwhelming and practically undisputed. He did not take the stand. The assignments are without merit. The judgment is affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE YOUNG and MR. JUSTICE HOLLAND concur.