☢ test - Í

provides that, when prosecuting charges for theft by receiving, ‘the crime shall be considered as having been committed in any county in which the accused exercised control over the property which was the subject of the theft.’ Here, the State clearly demonstrated that venue was proper in Dawson County, where Dixson began driving away in a vehicle containing the stolen goods.” 2. Evidence supported conviction despite some evidence that she “was a principal thief rather than the receiver of stolen items.” “[I]n this case the direct and uncontested evidence did not identify Dixson as the original thief. While Patterson testified that Dixson was involved in shoplifting the items, Dixson was not with the other two women when the officer saw them concealing clothing in The Children's Place. Thus, evidence Dixson was the original thief is not uncontested. See Weidendorf v. State, 215 Ga.App. 129, 130(1) (449 S.E.2d 675) (1994) (‘It is not a requirement of the present law that the State prove the accused did not steal the goods.’).” Rainly v. State, 307 Ga.App. 467, 705 S.E.2d 246 (November 30, 2010). Convictions for armed robbery and related offenses affirmed, but conviction for theft by receiving not supported by the evidence. “The state presented evidence that the Glock handgun found in Everette's apartment had been reported stolen in November 2007. The state asserts that it proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Everette should have known that the handgun had been stolen because, according to Peterson, she had bought it for $150 or $175 from ‘[s]ome guy on the street.’” No evidence of gun’s value, or gross disparity in purchase price, however. “That Everette purchased the handgun ‘on the street’ does not prove knowledge that it was stolen. White v. State, 283 Ga. 566, 568(2) (662 S.E.2d 131) (2008) (evidence that defendant purchased handgun ‘off the street’ and that the words ‘Memphis Police Department’ were engraved on the handle, was not sufficient to support theft by receiving conviction). The evidence presented was insufficient to sustain a conviction for theft by receiving stolen property, Thomas v. State, 270 Ga.App. 181, 182(1)(b) (606 S.E.2d 275) (2004) (evidence that defendant bought gun for $120 from a stranger was insufficient to support theft by receiving conviction), and the conviction must be reversed.” Cheney v. State, 307 Ga.App. 66, 703 S.E.2d 664 (October 5, 2010). Theft by receiving conviction affirmed; contrary to defendant’s assertion, “the identity of the owner is not a material element of the crime of theft by receiving. The State need only show that the stolen property belonged to someone other than the defendant. Brendeburg v. State, 292 Ga.App. 191, 193(1) (663 S.E.2d 844) (2008) (defining ‘property of another’ in theft by taking case); see also Causey v. State, 139 Ga.App. 499, 500(1) (229 S.E.2d 1) (1976).” Accord, Robinson v. State , 312 Ga.App. 736, 719 S.E.2d 601 (November 21, 2011). Mock v. State, 306 Ga.App. 93, 701 S.E.2d 567 (September 16, 2010). Evidence didn’t support defendant’s conviction for theft by receiving. “Here, the police found the stolen guns in a bathtub in a ‘dilapidated,’ ‘abandoned’ trailer, which was located on the property where Mock lived with his mother. … At most, the State has established that the stolen guns were located in a separate building on property where Mock lived. But there was no evidence that Mock had any knowledge, control, or possession of the trailer. Similarly, ‘[t]here was no evidence that he was ever in possession or control of the [guns], a necessary element of theft by receiving.’ Gonzales v. State, 276 Ga.App. 11, 13 (622 S.E.2d 401) (2005).” In re: J.L., 306 Ga.App. 89, 701 S.E.2d 564 (September 16, 2010). Delinquency adjudication based on theft by receiving reversed; evidence didn’t support finding that juvenile should have known dirt bike was stolen when he bought it. Juvenile court reasoned that juvenile paid far less than the value of the bike when he bought it; however, evidence didn’t reveal the bike’s value at the time it was stolen or purchased by juvenile. “Absent evidence of the ‘real value’ of the Suzuki at the time of the theft, the evidence does not support a finding, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the price offered by appellant was grossly disproportionate to the value.” Martin v. State, 300 Ga.App. 39, 684 S.E.2d 111 (September 3, 2009). Evidence supported defendant’s conviction for theft by receiving: “ Martin sold the two lawnmowers for $600 and $100 apiece, even though the evidence showed they were each worth several thousand dollars. Beyond these gross underprices, the evidence further showed that without forewarning, Martin simply knocked on an acquaintance's door to sell him the John Deere, and that he approached the second man (a stranger) through the man's employee to sell him the other lawnmower, lying to this second man that the lawnmower belonged to Martin's allegedly-deceased grandfather. Such suspicious behavior by Martin would support a finding that Martin knew the lawnmowers were stolen.” Peoples v. State, 295 Ga.App. 731, 673 S.E.2d 82 (January 27, 2009). Theft by taking and theft by receiving of same gun didn’t merge on sentencing, where different victims alleged – one the owner, the other the possessor. Notes that the two offenses are usually mutually exclusive, but defendant expressly declined to raise this issue.