State v. Rivera, 2013 Ohio 3203

On Oct. 28, 2011, Taylor Seitz left her purse (containing an iPhone) on a table at Brick Street Bar in Oxford; when she returned the phone was missing.
Seitz tracked the iPhone by GPS; it pinged between nearby locations and later showed stationary at Swing Hall on Miami University campus.
Around 7 a.m., Seitz and police located the phone in a dorm room; an occupant removed it from appellant Francisco Rivera’s pocket and returned it to Seitz.
Rivera told police he found the phone on the bar floor and put it in his pocket intending to return it the next day but could not explain how he would contact the owner or why he did not take it to the nearby police station or bar management.
Rivera was charged with receiving stolen property (R.C. 2913.51). After a bench trial he was found guilty; he appealed arguing the evidence was insufficient to prove he knew or had reasonable cause to believe the iPhone was stolen.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to prove Rivera knew or had reasonable cause to believe the phone was stolen	State: possession of recently stolen property plus implausible explanation permits inference of knowledge	Rivera: he found the phone on the bar floor and intended to return it — no knowledge it was stolen	Court: Evidence sufficient; reasonable juror could infer knowledge or reasonable cause to believe phone was stolen

State v. Hancock, 108 Ohio St.3d 57 (2006) (standard for sufficiency review: evidence viewed in light most favorable to prosecution)
State v. Afshari, 187 Ohio App.3d 151 (2010) (elements of receiving stolen property include knowing or having reasonable cause to believe property was stolen)
State v. Davis, 49 Ohio App.3d 109 (1988) (factors for inferring knowledge from possession of recently stolen merchandise)
State v. Arthur, 42 Ohio St.2d 67 (1975) (possession of recently stolen property may support conviction by inference)