State v. MangrumState v. Mangrum
- Reporters:
- Before:
- Edwards
Defendant, Gregory Mangrum, was charged by bill of information with illegal possession of stolen things valued over five hundred dollars, in violation of
1. The verdict was contrary to the law and to the evidence.
2. The sentence is excessive.
3. Because of error patent on the face of the record the conviction and sentence must be reversed.
Assignment of error number three was not briefed and, therefore, is considered abandoned.
FACTS
In November, 1985, Terri DeCarlo, Linda Rester‘s daughter, observed Terri Dillon, a classmate, on the school bus wearing what appeared to be two оf her mother‘s missing rings. When asked where she got them, Miss Dillon replied that her boyfriend gave them to her. Miss DeCarlo called her mother, who then notified the police.
Terri Dillоn testified at trial that she was called to the office at school, at which time she gave the rings to the police. She stated that defendant gave her the rings sometime during the first weeks of June, 1985. Defendant told her he got them from someone called Forehead. Miss Dillon testified that she heard Forehead‘s real name is Edward Butlеr.
Bogalusa Police Officer Kenny Kellis investigated Mrs. Rester‘s complaint concerning her stolen rings being worn by a student at Bogalusa High School. He talked to Terri Dillon, whо gave him the two rings she was wearing. Miss Dillon advised him that her boyfriend, defendant, had given her the rings.
Officer Kellis testified that he talked to defendant later that day when he camе to the police station. First, Kellis read defendant his Miranda rights; defendant then signed a rights form. In the presence of Officer Kellis and Captain Dorman Pritchard, defendant admitted that he had the rings in his possession. Defendant told them he purchased the rings from a person called Forehead, on Fourth Street and Second Avenue in Bogalusа. Defendant stated that he paid fifty dollars for the rings but believed them to be worth five to six hundred dollars. Defendant then advised them that he gave the rings to his girlfriend, Terri Dillon.
Linda Rester identified the rings as hers at trial. She testified that she paid $400.00 for one of them in 1974 and $169.00 to $179.00 for the other in 1984.
SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE
In assignment of error number one, defendant contends the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence. This allegation formed one of the grounds of defеndant‘s motion for a new trial, which was denied by the trial court. We note that only the weight of the evidence, and not its legal insufficiency, can be reviewed by the trial court in a motion for new trial under
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, an appellate court in Louisiana is controlled by the standard enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). That standard is that the appellate court must determine thаt the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that all of the elements оf the crime had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Captville, 448 So.2d 676 (La.1984). The standard has been codified in
When circumstantial evidence is used to prove the commission of the offense,
The crime of illegal pоssession of stolen things is defined in
Illegal possession of stolen things is the intentional possessing, procuring, receiving, or concealing of anything of value which has been the subject of any robbery or theft, under circumstances which indicate that the offender knew or had good reason to believe that the thing was the subject of оne of these offenses.
Thus, there are three elements of the crime; (1) intent, (2) possessing, procuring, receiving, or concealing stolen goods, and (3) knowledgе the goods were stolen. State v. Bowman, 434 So.2d 1175 (La.App. 1st Cir.1983).
First we note that the record is almost totally devoid of evidence that would tend to show that the rings indeed had been stolen. Linda Rester tеstified simply that she noticed the rings and other objects were missing. The fact that the rings were found to be missing is no proof of the fact they were stolen.
Assuming the rings were stolеn, we do not find there is sufficient proof defendant knew that to be the case. Defendant argues there was no evidence showing that he knew the rings were stolen; nоr was there evidence showing beyond a reasonable doubt that he had good reason to believe that the rings were stolen, if, indeed,
The Louisiana Supreme Court has held that
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we believe that a rationаl trier of fact would have failed to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant knew or had good reason to believe the rings had been stоlen when he acquired them. Defendant was not shown to be connected with a theft in any manner. In a statement to the police, defendant maintained that he wаs told the rings belonged to the seller‘s wife. Although an unusually low purchase price may give a person reason to suspect that the items were the subject of a theft, mere suspicion, not rising to the level of certainty required to form a belief, is not enough. See State v. Ennis, 414 So.2d 661 (La. 1982). It is certainly conceivable that a person could need money badly enough to sell his possessions for a fraction of their worth.
Without additional circumstantial evidence concerning defendant‘s acquisition of the jewelry, we conclude that the state‘s proof of the crime is not constitutionally sufficient in this case.
Accordingly, defendant‘s conviction and sentence are reversed.
REVERSED.
EDWARDS, J., dissents.