{ "id": 8547118, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. THOMAS GARLAND HART", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Hart", "decision_date": "1972-03-29", "docket_number": "No. 7212SC135", "first_page": "120", "last_page": "122", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "14 N.C. App. 120" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "27 S.E. 2d 814", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "223 N.C. 659", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8615676 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/223/0659-01" ] }, { "cite": "193 S.E. 388", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "212 N.C. 361", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8610416 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/212/0361-01" ] }, { "cite": "95 N.C. 626", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11275214 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "631" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/95/0626-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 326, "char_count": 5596, "ocr_confidence": 0.553, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.5475389815286666e-07, "percentile": 0.8850990926498031 }, "sha256": "3b7defeffca1c596d330e95421adeb0982a469638fd6a86f1fbd613e31188fe2", "simhash": "1:32ae647c4259bbc6", "word_count": 946 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:58:48.650385+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Campbell and Britt concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. THOMAS GARLAND HART" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "GRAHAM, Judge.\nDefendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to show that he purchased the clothes or actually received them into his possession. Even if the evidence be interpreted as insufficient to show that defendant actually received possession of the goods in question, we think it clearly sufficient to show that he constructively received the goods. Constructive receipt is sufficient to constitute \u201creceiving\u201d within the meaning of G.S. 14-71. 6 Strong, N.C. Index 2d, Receiving Stolen Goods, \u00a7 1, p. 607. The evidence here was that defendant directed a person at his home to take the goods to an apartment which defendant owned, and that he made a \u201cdown payment\u201d on them. As stated in State v. Stroud, 95 N.C. 626, 631, \u201cIt would certainly make him a receiver in contemplation of law, if the stolen property was received by his servant or agent, acting under his directions, he knowing at the time of giving the orders that it was stolen. ... It is the same as if he had done it himself.\u201d\nDefendant also contends the evidence was insufficient to show that he had knowledge the clothes were stolen. Guilty knowledge may be inferred from incriminating circumstances. State v. Miller, 212 N.C. 361, 193 S.E. 388. The test is whether defendant knew, or must have known, that the goods were stolen. State v. Oxendine, 223 N.C. 659, 27 S.E. 2d 814. When considered in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence tends to show that Howard showed up at defendant\u2019s house at 3:00 a.m. with clothes which he told defendant were \u201cout of\u201d a Fayetteville store. The clothes were offered to defendant for 10% of their retail value. This evidence is sufficient to support a finding by the jury that defendant knew the clothes were stolen at the time he received them.\nNo error.\nJudges Campbell and Britt concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "GRAHAM, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Morgan by Assistant Attorney General Hafer for the State.", "James G. Taylor, Assistant Public Defender, Twelfth Judicial District, for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. THOMAS GARLAND HART\nNo. 7212SC135\n(Filed 29 March 1972)\n1. Receiving Stolen Goods \u00a7 1\u2014 constructive receipt\nConstructive receipt is sufficient to constitute \u201creceiving\u201d within the meaning of G.S. 14-71.\n2. Receiving Stolen Goods \u00a7 5\u2014 constructive receipt \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nThe State\u2019s evidence was sufficient to show that defendant constructively received stolen goods where it tended to show that defendant directed a person at his home to take the goods to an apartment which defendant owned, and that he made a \u201cdown payment\u201d on them.\n3. Receiving Stolen Goods \u00a7 5\u2014 guilty knowledge \u2014 incriminating circumstances\nKnowledge that goods were stolen may be inferred from Incriminating circumstances, the test being whether defendant knew, or must have known, that the goods were stolen.\n4. Receiving Stolen Goods \u00a7 5\u2014 guilty knowledge \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nThe State\u2019s evidence was sufficient to support a finding by the jury that defendant knew the clothes in question were stolen at the time he received them where it tended to show that a person showed up at defendant\u2019s house at 3:00 a.m. with clothes which he told defendant were \u201cout of\u201d a certain store, and that the clothes were offered to defendant for 10% of their retail value.\nAppeal by defendant from Hall, Judge, 20 September 1971 Criminal Session of Superior Court held in Cumberland County.\nDefendant was brought to trial under a bill of indictment, proper in form, charging him with feloniously receiving stolen goods, knowing them to have been stolen. G.S. 14-71.\nThe State presented evidence which tended to show the following: On the night of 29 March 1971, Rufus Howard, Jr., and two other persons broke into Fleishman\u2019s department store in Fayetteville and removed clothing having an approximate retail value of $5,000. The clothing was taken to defendant\u2019s house in a taxi at about 3:00 a.m. and Howard told defendant that he and his companions had some clothes to sell. Defendant told a young man at the house to take them around \u201cto my apartment.\u201d In accordance with, defendant\u2019s instructions the men took the clothing to an apartment about two blocks away. They then returned to defendant\u2019s house and advised him that they wanted $400 or $500 for the clothes. Defendant gave them $25 and stated he would have to go downtown \u201cand see the man\u201d before he made any deal.\nHoward returned to defendant\u2019s house the next day and defendant told him that he was leaving right then to go down to the bank to get some money. According to Howard, defendant agreed to pay $500 for the clothes but never did do so. A few days after the clothes were put in the apartment, defendant ordered them removed because \u201ca man was on the way.\u201d Howard took this to mean the police were coming and removed the clothes.\nOn cross-examination Howard stated that he did not remember whether he told defendant the clothes were stolen but he did recall telling him that they were out of Fleishman\u2019s. In answer to the question, \u201cDid you tell him you had stolen them from the store?\u201d Howard stated: \u201cI didn\u2019t have to tell him. He probably already knew.\u201d\nDefendant offered evidence and testified in his own defense. He stated that Howard came to his house at 3:00 o\u2019clock in the morning and asked to borrow $25 on a watch in order to pay a taxicab driver. Defendant denied that Howard mentioned any clothes or that he ever saw any clothes. He did admit that he owned the apartment where the clothes were carried.\nThe jury returned a verdict of guilty and the court entered judgment thereon imposing an active prison sentence.\nAttorney General Morgan by Assistant Attorney General Hafer for the State.\nJames G. Taylor, Assistant Public Defender, Twelfth Judicial District, for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0120-01", "first_page_order": 146, "last_page_order": 148 }