Former Code 1933,

§ 26-1506 required both proof of possession and guilty knowledge. - Former Code 1933, § 26-1506 (see now O.C.G.A. § 16-9-70) required proof that the appellant not only have possession of an article the serial number of which had been removed, but also that appellant knew the serial number had been removed for the purpose of concealing the identity of such article. Rogers v. State, 139 Ga. App. 656, 229 S.E.2d 132 (1976).

Applicability.

- In view of the plain language of O.C.G.A. § 16-9-70, the statute applied only to a manufacturer's number or identification information; a saddle is not one of the items specified in the statute and is not mechanical or electrical in nature. Waters v. State, 252 Ga. App. 194, 555 S.E.2d 859 (2001).

Defendant must know identification mark has been removed for purpose of concealing or destroying identity. Blair v. State, 144 Ga. App. 118, 240 S.E.2d 319 (1977).

Proof of knowledge by circumstantial evidence.

- Knowledge required under O.C.G.A. § 16-9-70 may be established by circumstantial evidence. Rogers v. State, 139 Ga. App. 656, 229 S.E.2d 132 (1976).

Charge of criminal use of article with altered identification mark includes knowledge that mark was removed to conceal identity of the article, but such knowledge may be proved by circumstantial evidence. GaDonna v. State, 164 Ga. App. 582, 298 S.E.2d 556 (1982).

Knowledge that the identification mark has been removed for purposes of concealing the identity of the article is an essential element of the crime, which may be proved by circumstantial evidence. Power v. State, 260 Ga. 101, 390 S.E.2d 47 (1990).

Evidence that the defendant and the codefendants were arrested in possession of seven weapons, the serial numbers on each having been removed immediately after confronting their victims, constituted circumstantial evidence of the offense sufficient to authorize a jury charge concerning the criminal use of an article with an altered identification mark. Thurman v. State, 249 Ga. App. 390, 547 S.E.2d 715 (2001).

Inference of guilty knowledge.

- That identification mark has been removed may, under certain circumstances, authorize inference of guilty knowledge. Blair v. State, 144 Ga. App. 118, 240 S.E.2d 319 (1977).

Jury's verdict of guilty as to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon was not mutually exclusive of its verdict of not guilty regarding criminal use of an article with an altered identification mark. Fulton v. State, 232 Ga. App. 898, 503 S.E.2d 54 (1998).

Evidence sufficient for conviction.

- See Carter v. State, 180 Ga. App. 173, 348 S.E.2d 715 (1986).

Trial court should have granted defendant's motion for directed verdict, where, although the evidence showed that defendant was aware the serial number on a rifle had been removed, there was no evidence, direct or circumstantial, to show that defendant knew the serial number had been removed for the purpose of concealing the identity of the rifle. Power v. State, 260 Ga. 101, 390 S.E.2d 47 (1990).

Cited in Abrams v. State, 144 Ga. App. 874, 242 S.E.2d 756 (1978); Patterson v. State, 247 Ga. 736, 280 S.E.2d 836 (1981); Patterson v. State, 161 Ga. App. 85, 289 S.E.2d 270 (1982); Gunn v. State, 163 Ga. App. 906, 296 S.E.2d 221 (1982); Martin v. State, 165 Ga. App. 802, 302 S.E.2d 717 (1983); Lane v. State, 169 Ga. App. 63, 311 S.E.2d 240 (1983); Nichols v. State, 210 Ga. App. 134, 435 S.E.2d 502 (1993).

C.J.S.

- 37 C.J.S., Fraud, §§ 87, 123, 124.

ALR.

- Constitutionality of statute making possession of an automobile from which identifying marks have been removed a crime, 42 A.L.R. 1149.