☢ test - Í

In re: L.A., 292 Ga.App. 101, 663 S.E.2d 420 (June 19, 2008). 1. “[A]lthough ‘[m]ere proximity to stolen property is insufficient to establish possession or control,’ a passenger in a stolen vehicle may be found guilty of theft by receiving if he has the right to exercise control over the vehicle. (Punctuation omitted.) In re: J.Q.W., 288 Ga.App. 444, 446(a) (654 S.E.2d 424) (2007). Here, the juvenile court found L.A. guilty of the theft of the vehicle because he knew the vehicle was stolen, yet ‘[got] back in and use[d] it for his benefit to go somewhere and do something.’ We agree that this evidence, combined with the evidence that the vehicle was stolen from L.A.’s neighbor, was sufficient to establish that L.A. knew the vehicle was stolen and had the right to exercise control over it. See Jones v. State, 285 Ga.App. 866, 867-868(1) (648 S.E.2d 183) (2007); Hurston v. State, 202 Ga.App. 311, 313(1) (414 S.E.2d 303) (1991). 2. No evidence, however, supported juvenile’s delinquency finding for theft by receiving of items in the vehicle’s trunk, where no evidence showed that juvenile was aware the items were there or “ever had possession or control of these items.” In re: J.Q.W., 288 Ga.App. 444, 654 S.E.2d 424 (November 16, 2007). Adjudication of delinquency reversed; evidence was insufficient to establish theft by receiving. Defendant was backseat passenger in stolen vehicle which fled from pursuing police vehicle, and all three occupants then fled on foot. Held, there was no evidence that defendant either directly committed the offense, or was a party to the crime. As to direct commission: “‘[R]iding in a stolen van or automobile as a passenger does not support a conviction for theft by receiving unless the accused also, at some point, acquires possession of or controls the vehicle, i.e., has the right to exercise power over a corporeal thing .’ (Citations and punctuation omitted.) In re: C.W., 226 Ga.App. 30, 31 (485 S.E.2d 561) (1997).” Distinguishing Jones (June 15, 2007), below (“evidence was sufficient to find defendant had the right to exercise control over the stolen vehicle, ‘given that it was parked in front of his apartment’); Hurston v. State, 202 Ga.App. 311, 313(1) (414 S.E.2d 303) (1991) (evidence was sufficient to find defendant had the right to exercise control over the stolen vehicle, in that he was ‘left ... alone in the car with the vehicle running when [the driver] went into the convenience store’).” As to parties to a crime: “[W]e have held that the fact that there was damage to the steering column making it easily observable that the vehicle had been stolen, that the defendant was a passenger, and that the defendant fled from police provided insufficient evidence that the defendant aided and abetted the crime. Cooper [ v. State, 281 Ga.App. 882, 883-884(1) (637 S.E.2d 480) (2006)]. See also Harris v. State, [247 Ga.App. 41, 43 (543 S.E.2d 75) (2000)] (evidence ‘that [defendant] was a passenger, and he ran from the police,’ was insufficient to show that defendant was a party to the crime of theft by receiving a stolen vehicle); In re: C.W., 226 Ga.App. at 30-32 (evidence that defendant was a backseat passenger who had attempted to escape from the police was insufficient to sustain conviction). Accord Brown v. State, 285 Ga.App. 330, 332 (646 S.E.2d 273) (2007) (noting that ‘mere spatial proximity combined with flight is insufficient to connect a defendant to nearby contraband’) (citation and footnote omitted). This case fits into that same fact pattern, necessitating a reversal of the juvenile court based on our binding prior precedent.” See Jones (June 15, 2007), and Cooper (October 13, 2006), below; In re: L.A. (June 19, 2008), above. Jones v. State, 285 Ga.App. 866, 648 S.E.2d 183 (June 15, 2007). Evidence was sufficient to support defendant’s conviction for theft by receiving a stolen motor vehicle: “Construed to uphold the verdict, the evidence adduced on this charge reveals that Jones admitted that his fingerprints would be found in the Alero. [Co-defendant] Marvin Jones testified that the vehicle was stolen and that a screwdriver was used in the ignition. The vehicle was used in the commission of the armed robbery in which Jones participated. [Officer] Grunden, who had had the vehicle under surveillance, testified that it had been parked at the apartment complex where Jones resided. There was sufficient evidence for a jury to find both that Jones knew, or should have known, that the Alero was stolen, [ See, e.g., Johnson v. State, 236 Ga.App. 356, 357(1) (511 S.E.2d 921) (1999) (defendant admitted the car was stolen, and the stolen car was used in an armed robbery in which the defendant participated); Sanders v. State, 204 Ga.App. 545, 546(1)(a) (419 S.E.2d 759) (1992) (car was being driven without keys). ] especially in light of testimony that it was operated with a screwdriver, and that he had the right to exercise power over it, given that it was parked in front of his apartment. [ See, e.g., Green v. State, 277 Ga.App. 867, 868(1) (627 S.E.2d 914) (2006) (defendant was the only person at the residence where the stolen car was parked); Hurston v. State, 202 Ga.App. 311, 313(1) (414 S.E.2d 303) (1991) (codefendant left [defendant] alone in the car with the motor running). Compare Buchanan v. State, 254 Ga.App. 249, 251(1) (562 S.E.2d 216) (2002) (evidence that defendant’s shirt was found inside stolen car insufficient to establish possession or control). ] Accordingly, the evidence is sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt to sustain Jones’s conviction of theft by receiving stolen property.” Distinguished in In re: J.Q.W. (November 16, 2007), above. Price v. State, 283 Ga.App. 564, 642 S.E.2d 191 (February 12, 2007). “ The proper measure of value in a theft by receiving stolen property case is the fair cash market value either at the time and place of the theft or at any time during the receipt or concealment of the property. See Campbell v. State, 275 Ga.App. 8, 11(3) (619 S.E.2d 720) (2005); Baker v. State, 234 Ga.App. 846, 848 (507 S.E.2d 475) (1998). And, the testimony of the owner of the value of