#### STATE v. STACEY CLYDE JOLLEY, Alias STACEY CLYDE TOWNSEND.

(Filed 14 October, 1964.)

Larceny § 7—

Evidence that within less than three days after clothing of a value of some $600 was stolen many of the articles of clothing were found concealed in the trunk of the automobile which defendant was driving is sufficient to take the case to the jury under the presumption arising from the recent possession of stolen property, and defendant’s explanation that he had bought the clothing somewhere for the sum of $80.00 is not such an explanation as is calculated to weaken the presumption.

Appeal by defendant from Martin, S. J., April 6, 1964 “A” Criminal Session, MecKLENbueg Superior Court.

This criminal prosecution originated by indictment in which the defendant was charged with the larceny of various designated articles of men’s clothing valued at $1,162.05, the property of Bill King.

The evidence disclosed that just before midnight on March 1, 1964, Bill King, a clothing salesman, registered and parked his automobile at a motel in Charlotte with the many articles of sample clothing suspended on hangers inside his vehicle. The windows were closed and the doors were locked. About seven o’clock next morning he discovered the windows of his vehicle had been lowered during the night and all clothing stolen.

Three days later city police officers, while checking the driver and two passengers in a Cadillac automobile, discovered many articles of men’s clothing suspended in the vehicle. However, these articles were second-hand. After obtaining written permission to search the trunk of the Cadillac in which two companions were riding with the defendant, the officers found many articles of clothing identified py Mr. King as having been stolen from his vehicle. The value of the articles recovered amounted to $610.35. Also found in the Cadillac was a bent coat hanger which the State contended was suitable for use in lowering the windows of an automobile without breaking the lock. On being questioned, the defendant told the officers that he and one of his com*604panions bought the clothes for $80.00 from a colored man somewhere in Atlanta, Georgia.

At the close of the State’s evidence the defendant was unsuccessful in his motion to dismiss. From a jury verdict of guilty and judgment of imprisonment, he appealed.

T. W. Bruton, Attorney General; Harry W. McGalliard, Deputy Attorney General for the State.

Haynes, Graham, & Bernstein by William E. Graham, Jr., for defendant appellant.

PeR CcjRiam.

The evidence that the defendant was in the possession of many articles of sample clothing found concealed in the trunk of the automobile which he was driving within less than three days after the articles were stolen was sufficient to take the case to the jury and to sustain the verdict. The defendant’s explanation that he and one of his companions bought $600.00 worth of new clothing from a colored man somewhere in Atlanta for the sum of $80.00 was not calculated to weaken the presumption that the recent and unexplained possession of stolen property gives rise to an inference of fact that the. possessor was the th'ief. Evidence was ample to sustain the conviction. In the verdict and judgment, we find

No error.