Hello.
Here's a case that involved the exact facts that you describe:
Boyd v. City of New York et al. (2003), hosted by findlaw.com
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/027574p.pdf
Anthony Boyd was convicted of "criminal possession of stolen property
in the fourth degree" and "unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in the
third degree" even though Boyd said that he did not know that the
vehicle was stolen.
Boyd's convictions were eventually reversed on the grounds that
custodial interrogations were made prior to Miranda warnings, but the
point is that it is indeed possible to be convicted under the facts
that you describe.
As the court indicates, "To be convicted of knowing possession of
stolen property, the prosecution would have to prove that Boyd knew
that the Isuzu was stolen property." In the case, Boyd said that he
had purchased the vehicle from an unknown person, at the airport, for
$75. The court notes that such a "statement provides the minimum
requisite probable cause to believe that the prosecution could
succeed" (in proving that Boyd knew that the Isuzu was stolen
property).
--------
Another similar case:
JOHNNY PEMBERTON v. STATE OF ARKANSAS, cached by Google:
http://216.239.53.104/search?q=cache:IHlJvp9b844J:courts.state.ar.us/unpublished/2001b/20011003/ar00-639.wpd++bought+knew+stolen+vehicle++convicted&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
or shortened URL: http://snipurl.com/5vdj
Here, Pemberton was convicted of theft after buying a stolen vehicle
(a trailer, here) that he claimed he did not know was stolen.
---------
search strategy:
convicted purchased "that the * was stolen"
purchased knew stolen vehicle convicted
I hope this helps. If anything is unclear, please let me know via the
"request clarification" feature. |
