☢ test - Í

person that the gun was stolen.” Accord, Rainly (November 30, 2010), above. King v. State, 268 Ga.App. 811, 603 S.E.2d 88 (July 29, 2004). “A passenger in a stolen vehicle may be convicted of theft by receiving if other circumstances exist from which guilty knowledge may be inferred, such as some evidence, either direct or circumstantial that the accused was a party to the crime by aiding and abetting its commission. [Cits.] In this case, [co-defendant] testified that King was with him when he stole the truck. In addition, [second co-defendant] testified that it was obvious the truck was stolen because ‘[t]he ignition was messed up.’ Accordingly, there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find that King knew, or should have known, that the truck was stolen.” Phillips v. State, 269 Ga.App. 619, 604 S.E.2d 520 (June 22, 2004). Defendant could not be convicted of theft by receiving where evidence only authorized finding that, if there was a theft at all, defendant was the original thief. “Theft by taking, OCGA § 16-8-2, and theft by receiving ‘are two completely different crimes, having different elements, and are, in fact, so mutually exclusive that the thief and the receiver cannot even be accomplices,’ much less the same person. (Citation omitted.) Sosbee v. State, 155 Ga.App. 196, 197 (270 S.E.2d 367) (1980). Although, ‘where the principal thief is unknown, there is no burden on the state of proving that such thief was not the defendant,’ [cit.] where direct and uncontested evidence identifies the defendant as the original thief, the defendant cannot be convicted of theft by receiving. Sosbee v. State, 155 Ga.App. at 197.” Cited with approval, Clark v. State , 289 Ga.App. 612, 658 S.E.2d 190 (February 14, 2008) (Defendants’ convictions for burglary and for theft by receiving of items taken in the burglary were mutually exclusive); Fields v. State , 310 Ga.App. 455, 714 S.E.2d 45 (July 1, 2011) (theft by receiving convictions reversed; “there were video and still photographs, clearly revealing Fields's unobstructed face and body from several angles, depicting him as the thief stealing the laptops.”) Wells v. State, 268 Ga.App. 62, 601 S.E.2d 433 (June 21, 2004). “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. Hurston v. State, 202 Ga.App. 311, 312, 414 S.E.2d 303 (1991). But 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.’ Id. (punctuation and citation omitted).” Evidence that defendant pawned, at his brother’s request, a gun stolen more than four years earlier, was insufficient to show knowledge that the gun was stolen. Accord, Smith v. State , 290 Ga.App. 689, 659 S.E.2d 917 (April 1, 2008) (“no inference of guilty knowledge can be drawn solely from the fact that Smith pawned the speakers nearly one month after they were stolen”). Mullins v. State, 267 Ga.App. 393, 599 S.E.2d 340 (May 13, 2004). “[T]heft by receiving stolen property is not a lesser included offense of armed robbery, theft by taking, or hijacking a motor vehicle.” Brown v. State, 265 Ga.App. 613, 594 S.E.2d 770 (February 13, 2004). “‘Buying at a price grossly less than the real value is a sufficient circumstance to excite suspicion,’ [cits.], and that circumstance, alone, is enough to authorize the defendant’s conviction. [cit.]” Accord, Gillis (May 7, 2012), above. Reedman v. State, 265 Ga.App. 162, 593 S.E.2d 46 (December 19, 2003). Knowledge that the property is stolen, an essential element of theft by receiving, may be inferred “‘from circumstances which would excite suspicion in the mind of an ordinary prudent man.’ (cit.)” “Contradictory statements by the defendant coupled with other evidence authorize the jury to find that the defendant received the stolen property with knowledge that it had been stolen.” Lopez v. State, 259 Ga.App. 720, 578 S.E.2d 304 (February 18, 2003). “To prove theft by receiving, the State must show that the item received was in fact stolen.... Lopez correctly points out that the officer’s testimony that radio dispatch identified the pistol as stolen is non-probative hearsay. The fact that the weapon was labeled for law enforcement use only and loaded with police-issue ammunition does not exclude the possibility that the weapon may have been given away or sold ‘on the black market’ in violation of the warning.” Accord, White v. State , 283 Ga. 566, 662 S.E.2d 131 (June 2, 2008) (fact that gun was marked “Memphis Police Department” “does not support the inference that the gun was stolen”). Miller v. State, 275 Ga. 32, 561 S.E.2d 810 (March 28, 2002). Defendant’s inconsistent explanations of how he had come into possession of two rifles, together with his knowledge of larcenous character of individual from whom he claimed to have obtained them, permitted inference that defendant had knowledge of the stolen nature of the rifles, as required to support conviction of theft by receiving stolen property. Character of the person from whom goods are received is a factor from which the defendant’s knowledge that the goods were stolen may be deduced.