Verdicts mutually exclusive.

- In finding the defendant guilty of bringing stolen property into the State of Georgia and theft by conversion of the same property, the jury necessarily reached two positive findings of fact that could not logically and mutually exist and, thus, the verdicts were mutually exclusive. Jones v. State, 302 Ga. 730, 808 S.E.2d 655 (2017).

Evidence supported defendant's conviction, when the defendant acknowledged that defendant knew that the vehicle the defendant brought into Georgia was stolen, even though the defendant may not have been physically behind the steering wheel at the moment the vehicle crossed the state line. Olsen v. State, 191 Ga. App. 763, 382 S.E.2d 715 (1989).

Evidence was sufficient to find the defendant guilty of theft by bringing stolen property into the state; witness testimony placed the defendant in possession of the car in another state minutes after the theft and in possession of the car in the state hours after the theft. Smith v. State, 256 Ga. App. 22, 567 S.E.2d 359 (2002).

Evidence supported a defendant's conviction of bringing stolen property to Georgia, eluding an officer, and possessing marijuana as a party, if not as a conspirator, since: (1) the defendant discussed with the defendant's love interest what would happen if they were apprehended by the police; (2) the love interest gave the defendant a handgun after the love interest stole a new gun and the defendant packed two guns with the defendant's personal items and the ski masks; (3) the defendant suspected that the truck was stolen, refused to ask about the truck's origin, saw the stolen gun on the seat of the truck, observed two gas drive-offs, ate stolen food, smoked shared marijuana repeatedly, and sat next to the glove compartment where the marijuana lay; and (4) the defendant was silent during the police pursuits, saw the defendant's love interest retrieve a stolen handgun just prior to an assault of a police officer, did not hinder the love interest or warn the police, lied to the police to cover up the matter, and referred to the entire affair as having "fun for a minute." Michael v. State, 281 Ga. App. 289, 635 S.E.2d 790 (2006), overruled on other grounds by Gibbs v. State, 304 Ga. App. 723, 798 S.E.2d 308 (2017).

Cited in Cunningham v. State, 222 Ga. App. 740, 475 S.E.2d 924 (1996); Selley v. State, 237 Ga. App. 47, 514 S.E.2d 706 (1999); Barron v. State, 291 Ga. App. 494, 662 S.E.2d 285 (2008); Davis v. State, 322 Ga. App. 826, 747 S.E.2d 19 (2013); In the Interest of D.C., 324 Ga. App. 95, 748 S.E.2d 514 (2013).

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.

- What constitutes tax-deductible theft loss under 26 USCS § 165, 98 A.L.R. Fed. 229.