O.C.G.A.
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
A person commits the offense of theft by receiving property stolen in another state when he receives, disposes of, or retains stolen property which he knows or should know was stolen in another state, unless the property is received, disposed of, or retained with intent to restore it to
the owner.
History
(Ga. L. 1918, p. 272, § 1; Code 1933, § 26-2623; Code 1933, § 26-1816, enacted by Ga. L. 1972, p. 841, § 2.)
Annotations
Law reviews. - For survey article on criminal law and procedure, see 34 Mercer L. Rev. 89 (1982). JUDICIAL DECISIONS Venue. - One who has bought or received stolen property has exercised control over that property sufficient to warrant venue when the property was bought or received. Stephens v. State, 164 Ga. App. 398, 297 S.E.2d 90 (1982). Evidence sufficient to support conviction. - When the state produced evidence that the defendant stated to the police that the defendant knew a car had been stolen in another state by the defendant’s brother, that the car was used by
the defendant and other robbers in a robbery, that an item from the robbery was found a few feet from the car, and that the defendant’s fingerprints were found on the car, this was more than enough for the jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Kimble v. State, 236 Ga. App. 391, 512 S.E.2d 306 (1999). Cited in Fair v. State, 140 Ga. App. 281, 231 S.E.2d 1 (1976); Cherry v. State, 198 Ga. App. 415, 401 S.E.2d 607 (1991).
RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 66 Am. Jur. 2d, Receiving and Transporting Stolen Property, §§ 8, 9, 10. C.J.S. - 76 C.J.S., Receiving or Transferring Stolen Goods, § 5. ALR. - Knowledge imputed to reasonable man as test of knowledge of defendant in prosecution for larceny or receiving stolen property, 147 A.L.R. 1058. What amounts to ‘‘exclusive’’ possession
of stolen goods to support inference of burglary or other felonious taking, 51 A.L.R.3d 727. Conviction of receiving stolen property, or related offenses, where stolen property previously placed under police control, 72 A.L.R.4th 838. What constitutes tax-deductible theft loss under 26 USCS § 165, 98 A.L.R. Fed. 229.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases, 1987–2020 · leading case:
Preston v. State, 354 S.E.2d 135 (Ga. 1987).
Preston v. State, 354 S.E.2d 135 (Ga. 1987).
· cites it 2× “The appellant was convicted of one count of theft by receiving stolen property, OCGA § 16-8-8, and one count of giving a false name to a law enforcement officer with the intent of misleading the officer as to his identity.”
Kimble v. State, 512 S.E.2d 306 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “Under OCGA § 16-8-8, “[a] person commits the offense of theft by receiving property stolen in another state when he receives, disposes of, or retains stolen property which he knows or should know was stolen in another state, unless the property is received, disposed of, or…”
Amanda Jean Nails v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 4× “” OCGA § 16-8-8 provides that [a] person commits the offense of theft by receiving property stolen in another state when [s]he receives, disposes of, or retains stolen property which [s]he knows or should know was stolen in another state, unless the property is received,…”
State v. Green., 828 S.E.2d 635 (Ga. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “Count 8 alleges that on February 28, 2013, Green "did unlawfully receive and retain stolen property, a 2010 Mercedes-Benz E550," in violation of OCGA § 16-8-8. By the indictment's clear terms, the State alleged that the crime occurred on February 28, 2013, within four years of…”
State v. Erkes Antwon Green (Ga. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “Count 8 alleges that on February 28, 2013, Green “did unlawfully receive and retain stolen property, a 2010 Mercedes-Benz E550,” in violation of OCGA § 16-8-8. By the indictment’s clear terms, the State alleged that the crime occurred on February 28, 2013, within four years of…”
Cherry v. State, 401 S.E.2d 607 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 2× “See OCGA § 16-8-8. Cherry maintained that he wound up in possession of the automobile after another individual picked him up hitchhiking, and that this other individual abandoned the vehicle to him after the robbery of the Winn-Dixie; that he did not know it was stolen and there…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.