☢ test - Í

guilt. Morever, when Naillon was stopped by police, he gave a false name, which also raises an inference of guilt. Richardson v. State, 275 Ga.App. 320, 620 S.E.2d 522 (2005). Under these circumstances, we find the evidence sufficient to support Naillon’s convictions.” Note the use of theft by taking caselaw to support the sufficiency of evidence of theft by receiving. Also note different rule for theft by receiving cases stated in Duncan (April 10, 2006), note 4, above. McKinney v. State, 276 Ga.App. 75, 622 S.E.2d 427 (October 24, 2005). Evidence authorized defendant’s conviction for theft by receiving stolen vehicle: victim left his vehicle with body shop; body shop owner (King) let defendant use victim’s vehicle without victim’s permission or knowledge, in exchange for drugs; defendant did not return the vehicle to body shop. “Since McKinney knew that King worked on cars King did not own, and the Buick was visibly undergoing body work, a jury could conclude that McKinney knew or should have known that King did not own the Buick and had no authority to rent the Buick in exchange for crack.” Richardson v. State, 275 Ga.App. 320, 620 S.E.2d 522 (August 31, 2005). Circumstantial evidence supported conviction for theft by receiving. “These circumstances include the presence of an expired rental contract, revealing the true owner and renter of the vehicle, in the glove compartment along with a document personal to Richardson. This evidence authorized the jury to infer that Richardson was aware that the car was long overdue and had been rented to someone other than Robinson. [Cit.]” Richardson also gave false birth date and social security number, and had earlier tried to avoid being seen by police officer. Drake v. State, 274 Ga.App. 882, 619 S.E.2d 380 (August 3, 2005). “Representing himself as the legal owner of the tools, Drake did not disclose to the pawn shops that he had stolen the tools. Relying on his misrepresentation, the pawn shops purchased the items from Drake. Based on these facts, the jury was authorized to find Drake guilty of theft by deception, [cits.]” presumably of the proceeds of the pawns. Petty v. State, 271 Ga.App. 547, 610 S.E.2d 169 (February 9, 2005). “‘[I]n a theft by receiving stolen property, where the principal thief is unknown, there is no burden on the State to prove that the thief was not the defendant.’ (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Thomas v. State, 218 Ga.App. 371, 373(1), 461 S.E.2d 305 (1995). Accordingly, in the absence of evidence proving that Petty was the thief, the jury could infer that he was guilty of theft by receiving. See Shaheed v. State, 245 Ga.App. 754(1), 538 S.E.2d 823 (2000); Robinson v. State, 215 Ga.App. 125, 126(1), 449 S.E.2d 679 (1994).” Accord, Marriott v. State , 320 Ga.App. 58, 739 S.E.2d 68 (March 1, 2013). Dawson v. State, 271 Ga.App. 217, 609 S.E.2d 158 (January 6, 2005). 1. Evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of theft by receiving: defendant was found in possession of the vehicle four days after it was stolen; he “sped off when officers tried to stop him, jumped out of the moving Jeep, and fled on foot.” He was apprehended after a short chase. Similar transaction evidence showed a similar incident in 1986. Accord, Lee v. State , 320 Ga.App. 573, 740 S.E.2d 307 (March 20, 2013) (similar facts, defendant found with car twelve hours after stolen). 2. Criminal trespass (maliciously interfering with possession or use of the property of another) was not a lesser-included offense to theft by receiving, which the indictment alleged, and “the evidence was sufficient to infer[,] guilty knowledge.” Crowder v. State, 271 Ga.App. 177, 609 S.E.2d 134 (December 30, 2004). Defendant’s conviction for theft by receiving stolen gun reversed; evidence was insufficient to establish that defendant knew or should have known that the gun was stolen. Gun was reported stolen two years earlier; “the State has not presented any evidence that something about the gun would excite the suspicions of an ordinarily prudent person about its origins.” Gun was found in a hotel room; State contends that defendant’s efforts to direct police away from the hotel room was circumstantial evidence of guilty knowledge about the gun. “Although the State argues that Crowder tried to keep police out of Room 107 to avoid discovery of a stolen gun hidden in a drawer, it is equally reasonable to conclude that he was trying to prevent police from finding the digital scales covered in cocaine residue, which were in plain view.” Accord, Stacey v. State , 292 Ga. 838, 741 S.E.2d 881 (April 29, 2013) (“evidence that [defendants] found a gun that had been reported stolen … is insufficient.”); Daughtie (June 1, 2015), above. Thomas v. State, 270 Ga.App. 181, 606 S.E.2d 275 (October 26, 2004). Defendant’s conviction for theft by receiving reversed. “Knowledge that goods are stolen is … an essential element of the crime of receiving stolen goods and must be proved, although it may be inferred ‘where the circumstances would excite suspicion in the minds of ordinarily prudent persons.’ [Cit.] Here, the only evidence of this crime presented to the jury at the first stage of Thomas’s bifurcated trial was that he had purchased the pistol for $120 from someone he did not know. The state did not show that those circumstances were sufficient in and of themselves to excite suspicion in the mind of an ordinarily prudent