☢ test - Í

“found it behind a club in North Carolina, adding ‘the way [he] found it, looks like somebody put it there.’ Because this evidence sheds no light on appellant's knowledge of the provenance of the handgun, we find it insufficient to enable a rational jury to find appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of theft by receiving stolen property.” See also Crowder (December 30, 2004), below, and cases cited thereunder. In re: T.J.J., 329 Ga.App. 537, 765 S.E.2d 704 (November 12, 2014). Delinquency adjudication, based on theft by receiving, affirmed. “‘Evidence of recent, unexplained possession of stolen goods is sufficient to support a conviction for theft by taking. However, proof of possession, alone, of recently stolen property is not sufficient to establish the essential element of the offense of theft by receiving stolen property that the possessor knew or should have known that the property was stolen. Nevertheless, knowledge sufficient to establish guilt may be inferred from possession in conjunction with other evidence of knowledge, and such guilty knowledge may be inferred from circumstances which would excite suspicion in the mind of an ordinary prudent man.’ (Citations, punctuation, and footnotes omitted.) Smith v. State, 290 Ga.App. 689, 690, 659 S.E.2d 917 (2008). Here, there is ample evidence to support the juvenile court's determination that T.J.J. knew or should have known that guns and watches were stolen. T.J.J. was a passenger in Rogers's stolen truck, and he fled when he observed police as he returned to the truck in the Target parking lot; the guns were in the truck at that time. Police recovered items from the truck in a wooded area near Rogers's home where T.J.J. was seen and apprehended the day after the truck was stolen. Police also found multiple stolen items in T.J.J.'s bedroom the day after the truck was stolen, including a distinctive key belonging to Rogers, multiple watches, ammunition, jewelry, and a special edition bottle of whiskey, as well as latex gloves. And police recovered from T.J.J.'s phone photographs of the guns and of T.J.J. wearing one of the watches within days after the items were stolen from Lester and Moore. Under these circumstances and given T.J.J.'s comment to his co-defendant at the police station and his possession of the stolen property, the evidence is sufficient to support a finding of guilt.” Reeves v. State, 329 Ga.App. 470, 765 S.E.2d 407 (November 4, 2014). 1. Evidence supported conviction for theft by receiving, “as the evidence showed more than possession of Santiago's belongings; [cit.] Reeves possessed items that had been stolen from other individuals. Although the jury reached no verdict as to Reeves's guilt or innocence of three burglary counts, evidence was presented to the jury identifying certain items recovered from Reeves's girlfriend's vehicle as items which had been stolen from the residences of the burglary victims.[fn] Reeves had driven the vehicle the day Davis's apartment was burglarized; the vehicle was located in Davis's apartment complex the day Davis's apartment was burglarized; and the contents of the vehicle led police to search Reeves's girlfriend's apartment where police recovered Santiago's belongings. Moreover, the circumstances of Reeves's arrest were that he was seen running from the direction of an apartment building where a burglary had been reported, he attempted to avoid police detection by fleeing from police, and he was carrying a laptop that had been stolen from the apartment that had been burglarized.” 2. Second charge of theft by receiving wasn’t supported by evidence that the property was, in fact, stolen. “A police officer testified that he was able to determine that a memory card found at the apartment of Reeves's girlfriend was one which had been previously reported stolen by McEntire. McEntire did not testify at trial. Thus, there being no competent evidence to show that the memory card had been stolen—only that it had been reported stolen—Reeves's conviction on this count cannot stand. See Smith v. State, 283 Ga.App. 317–319 (641 S.E.2d 296) (2007) (there was no admissible evidence in this case to establish that the compressor had been stolen; although police officer testified that he was responding to a stolen property call and that the alleged victims reported that an air compressor had been stolen from a van, the officer's hearsay testimony was not competent to show that the air compressor had been stolen); Lopez v. State, 259 Ga.App. 720, 722(2) (578 S.E.2d 304) (2003) (‘There must be proof of a larcenous taking to authorize a conviction for theft by receiving stolen property. If the goods found in the possession of the defendant are not shown to be that which [have] in fact been stolen, proof of larcenous taking is absent.’ Officer's testimony that radio dispatch identified pistol as stolen was nonprobative hearsay) (citation and punctuation omitted).” Miller v. State, 323 Ga.App. 412, 744 S.E.2d 926 (July 3, 2013). Evidence supported conviction for attempted theft by receiving where police informant took new tools to pawn dealer. “‘The evidence included facts and circumstances from which [his] knowledge that the [drills were presented to him as] stolen could have been inferred.’ Bradley v. State, 317 Ga.App. 477, 479–480, 731 S.E.2d 371 (2012) (citation omitted). Such facts and circumstances included the informant telling Miller that the items were not ‘hot, hot,’ Miller's failure to put the serial numbers of the items on the pawn tickets or the property-tracking website, his instruction to the informant to remove the packaging of one of the new items from the store and his own admissions that he had been suspicious of the informant and ‘felt funny’ about the transactions.” Thornton v. State, 292 Ga. 796, 741 S.E.2d 641 (April 15, 2013). Malice murder conviction affirmed, but evidence didn’t support conviction for theft by receiving; “proof of possession of recently-stolen property, alone, is not sufficient to