Mississippi Code
Miss. Code Ann. § 97-17-70 (2024)
Receiving stolen property; dual charges of both stealing and receiving same property not to be brought against single defendant in same jurisdiction; penalties
✓ Justia copy: laws through about 2024 (2025 and 2026 sessions missing)
- (1) A person commits the crime of receiving stolen property if he intentionally possesses, receives, retains or disposes of stolen property knowing that it has been stolen or having reasonable grounds to believe it has been stolen, unless the property is possessed, received, retained or disposed of with intent to restore it to the owner.
- (2) The fact that the person who stole the property has not been convicted, apprehended or identified is not a defense to a charge of receiving stolen property.
- (3)
- (a) Evidence that the person charged under this section stole the property that is the subject of the charge of receiving stolen property is not a defense to a charge under this section; however, dual charges of both stealing and receiving the same property shall not be brought against a single defendant in a single jurisdiction.
- (b) Proof that a defendant stole the property that is the subject of a charge under this section shall be prima facie evidence that the defendant had knowledge that the property was stolen.
- (4) Any person who shall be convicted of receiving stolen property which exceeds One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) or more, but less than Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) in value shall be punished by imprisonment in the custody of the State Department of Corrections for a term not exceeding five (5) years or by a fine of not more than Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00), or both.
- (5) Any person who shall be convicted of receiving stolen property which exceeds Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) or more but less than Twenty-five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) in value shall be punished by imprisonment in the custody of the State Department of Corrections for a term not exceeding ten (10) years or by a fine of not more than Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00), or both.
- (6) Any person who shall be convicted of receiving stolen property which exceeds Twenty-five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) in value shall be punished by imprisonment in the custody of the State Department of Corrections for a term not exceeding twenty (20) years or by a fine of not more than Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00), or both.
- (7) Any person who shall be convicted of receiving stolen property which does not exceed One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) in value may be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than six (6) months or by a fine of not more than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), or both if the court finds substantial and compelling reasons why the offender cannot be safely and effectively supervised in the community, is not amenable to community-based treatment, or poses a significant risk to public safety. If such a finding is not made, the court shall suspend the sentence of imprisonment and impose a period of probation not exceeding one (1) year or a fine of not more than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), or both. Any person convicted of a third or subsequent offense under this subsection where the value of the property is not less than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00), shall be imprisoned in the Penitentiary for a term not exceeding three (3) years or fined an amount not exceeding One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), or both.
Laws, 1993, ch. 359, § 1; Laws, 2003, ch. 499, § 4; Laws, 2005, ch. 511, § 1; Laws, 2007, ch. 437, § 1, eff. 7/1/2007.
Amended by Laws, 2014, ch. 457, HB 585, 22, eff. 7/1/2014.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 35
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1995–2026 · leading case: Randy Charles Wilson v. State of Mississippi, 194 So. 3d 855 (Miss. 2016).
Randy Charles Wilson v. State of Mississippi, 194 So. 3d 855 (Miss. 2016). “” Miss. Code Ann. § 97-17-70 (3)(b) (Rev. 2014).”
Timothy Allen Wilson v. State of Mississippi, 198 So. 3d 408 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016). “” Miss. Code Ann. § 97-17-70 (4) (Rev. 2007).”
Brazzle v. State, 13 So. 3d 810 (Miss. 2009). “See Miss.Code Ann. §§ 97-17-70 and 97-1-5 (Rev.”
Kadarius White v. State of Mississippi, 223 So. 3d 859 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017). “2006); Miss. Code Ann. § 97-17-70 (Supp. 2012). A jury subsequently found White guilty of two counts of armed robbery, two counts of armed carjacking, and one count of possession of stolen property.”
Nguyen v. State, 761 So. 2d 873 (Miss. 2000). “§ 97-17-70 "Receiving stolen property": (1) A person commits the crime of receiving stolen property if he intentionally possesses, receives, retains or disposes of stolen property knowing that it has been stolen or having reasonable grounds to believe it has been stolen, unless…”
Ezell v. State, 956 So. 2d 315 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006). “Miss. Code Ann. § 97-17-70 (2) (Rev.2006).”
Malcolm K. Patrick v. State of Mississippi, 269 So. 3d 460 (Miss. Ct. App. 2018). “Miss. Code Ann. § 97-17-70 (4) (Rev. 2014).”
Williams v. State, 763 So. 2d 186 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000). “Miss.Code Ann. § 97-17-70(3) (Rev.1994). If that value is not shown, the sentence can be up to six months in jail.”
Ladd v. State, 87 So. 3d 1108 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012). “” Miss.Code Ann. § 97-17-70(2) (Supp.2011).”
William Travis Lowell v. State of Mississippi, 229 So. 3d 1054 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017). “See Miss. Code Ann. § 97-17-70 (3)(a) (Rev. 2014); see also Davis v.”
Alphonso N. Owens v. United States, 90 A.3d 1118 (D.C. 2014). “1 ("having reason to know the property was stolen"); Miss.Code Ann. § 97-17-70(1) ("having reasonable grounds to believe it has been stolen”); N.”
Rogers v. State, 920 So. 2d 550 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006). “Miss.Code Ann. § 97-17-70(3) (Supp.2005).”
Miss. Code Ann. § 97-17-70(1): 9 cases
Randy Charles Wilson v. State of Mississippi, 194 So. 3d 855 (Miss. 2016). “” Miss. Code Ann. § 97-17-70 (3)(b) (Rev. 2014).”
Timothy Allen Wilson v. State of Mississippi, 198 So. 3d 408 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016). “” Miss. Code Ann. § 97-17-70 (4) (Rev. 2007).”
Alphonso N. Owens v. United States, 90 A.3d 1118 (D.C. 2014). “1 ("having reason to know the property was stolen"); Miss.Code Ann. § 97-17-70(1) ("having reasonable grounds to believe it has been stolen”); N.”
Washington v. State, 726 So. 2d 209 (Miss. Ct. App. 1998).
Ezell v. State, 956 So. 2d 315 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006). “Miss. Code Ann. § 97-17-70 (2) (Rev.2006).”
Miss. Code Ann. § 97-17-70(2): 1 case
Ladd v. State, 87 So. 3d 1108 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012). “” Miss.Code Ann. § 97-17-70(2) (Supp.2011).”
Miss. Code Ann. § 97-17-70(3): 5 cases
Randy Charles Wilson v. State of Mississippi, 194 So. 3d 855 (Miss. 2016). “” Miss. Code Ann. § 97-17-70 (3)(b) (Rev. 2014).”
Ezell v. State, 956 So. 2d 315 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006). “Miss. Code Ann. § 97-17-70 (2) (Rev.2006).”
Williams v. State, 763 So. 2d 186 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000). “Miss.Code Ann. § 97-17-70(3) (Rev.1994). If that value is not shown, the sentence can be up to six months in jail.”
Rogers v. State, 920 So. 2d 550 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006). “Miss.Code Ann. § 97-17-70(3) (Supp.2005).”
Lindsey v. State, 990 So. 2d 270 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008).
Miss. Code Ann. § 97-17-70(3)(a): 1 case
Jordan Davis v. State of Mississippi, 162 So. 3d 805 (Miss. 2015).
Miss. Code Ann. § 97-17-70(3)(b): 1 case
Randy Charles Wilson v. State of Mississippi, 194 So. 3d 855 (Miss. 2016). “” Miss. Code Ann. § 97-17-70 (3)(b) (Rev. 2014).”
Miss. Code Ann. § 97-17-70(4): 6 cases
Randy Charles Wilson v. State of Mississippi, 194 So. 3d 855 (Miss. 2016). “” Miss. Code Ann. § 97-17-70 (3)(b) (Rev. 2014).”
Timothy Allen Wilson v. State of Mississippi, 198 So. 3d 408 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016). “” Miss. Code Ann. § 97-17-70 (4) (Rev. 2007).”
Williams v. State, 763 So. 2d 186 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000). “Miss.Code Ann. § 97-17-70(3) (Rev.1994). If that value is not shown, the sentence can be up to six months in jail.”
Rogers v. State, 920 So. 2d 550 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006). “Miss.Code Ann. § 97-17-70(3) (Supp.2005).”
Hill v. State, 132 So. 3d 1069 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014).
Miss. Code Ann. § 97-17-70(7): 1 case
Timothy Allen Wilson v. State of Mississippi, 198 So. 3d 408 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016). “” Miss. Code Ann. § 97-17-70 (4) (Rev. 2007).”
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.