State v. StreetÂ, 254 N.C. App. 214

On Aug. 30, 2010, Stihl hedge trimmers were reported stolen from North Carolina Central University.
The trimmers were sold to J & L Jewelry and Pawn the same day; the pawn ticket identified Franklin Street as the seller and recorded the trimmers' serial number.
Law enforcement matched the serial number to the stolen trimmers and interviewed Street in November 2011; Street was indicted for obtaining property by false pretenses (not for the taking itself).
At trial the State introduced evidence that the property was stolen, Street had exclusive possession shortly after the theft, and the pawn ticket bore his identifying information.
Over Street's objection, the trial court instructed the jury on the doctrine of recent possession; the jury convicted Street of obtaining property by false pretenses.
Street appealed by writ of certiorari arguing the recent-possession instruction was improper for an obtaining-by-false-pretense charge; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the doctrine of recent possession may be instructed in a prosecution for obtaining property by false pretenses	The State argued the recent-possession instruction was appropriate because the evidence showed the property was stolen, Street possessed it exclusively, and possession was sufficiently recent to permit an inference he was the taker	Street argued the doctrine does not apply to obtaining property by false pretenses and that giving it would improperly broaden the doctrine beyond its limits	The court held the instruction was proper: the doctrine can be used with obtaining-by-false-pretense charges when supported by evidence (stolen property, exclusive possession, and recentness), and its elements are not inconsistent with that offense

State v. McQueen, 165 N.C. App. 454 (evidentiary rule: elements for recent-possession inference and its use as jury evidence)
State v. Fair, 291 N.C. 171 (doctrine applies only if stolen items are shown to be taken at same time/place as charged property; recent-possession inference is evidentiary)
State v. Neill, 244 N.C. 252 (doctrine inapplicable to receiving stolen goods because receiving presupposes theft by another)
State v. Bell, 270 N.C. 25 (doctrine applied to robbery as well as breaking and entering)
State v. Pickard, 143 N.C. App. 485 (recent possession allows inference of larceny)
State v. Brown, 221 N.C. App. 383 (recent-possession raises presumption of guilt for larceny and related breaking/entering when supported by evidence)
State v. Barron, 202 N.C. App. 686 (jury-instruction correctness reviewed de novo)
State v. Kilgore, 65 N.C. App. 331 (elements of obtaining property by false pretenses)