R.I. Gen. Laws
Rhode Island General Laws

R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-41-2 (2026)

Receiving stolen goods

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section RI-LEGwebserver.rilegislature.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Every person who shall fraudulently receive any stolen money, goods, securities, chattels, or other property, knowing it to be stolen, shall be deemed guilty of larceny, although the person who stole the property may not have been prosecuted or convicted for it. The possession of any stolen property shall be evidence of guilty knowledge by the person having possession that the property was stolen, unless the person shows that it was acquired in the due course of trade and for adequate consideration.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1965–2021 · leading case: State v. Grant, 840 A.2d 541 (R.I. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Grant, 840 A.2d 541 (R.I. 2004). · cites it 5× “II Lesser-included Offenses In a rather novel argument, defendant next challenges his two robbery convictions on the grounds that the trial justice erred by refusing to allow the jury to consider whether defendant might have been guilty of receiving stolen goods in violation of…”
State v. Cipriano, 21 A.3d 408 (R.I. 2011). · cites it 5× “Bryant each was charged with: (1) fraudulently receiving stolen goods on or about April 15, 2005, including “perfumes and various pharmacy products, belonging to CVS, Brook’s [Pharmacy,] and Bath & Body Works,” with a value exceeding $500, in violation of G.L.1956 §§ 11-41-2 and…”
State v. Porto, 591 A.2d 791 (R.I. 1991). · cites it 11× “1956 (1981 Reenactment) § 11-41-2; and count 51 charged defendant with filing a false or an erroneous statement with the Bristol police in violation of G.”
Ludwig v. Kowal, 419 A.2d 297 (R.I. 1980). · cites it 2× “73-301, which charged defendant with receiving stolen goods in violation of § 11-41-2, 2 Kowal pleaded guilty according to the judgment attached to plaintiff’s affidavit.”
State v. CIRESI, 45 A.3d 1201 (R.I. 2012). · cites it 2× “As a result of this in-depth investigation, Ciresi was charged by indictment in March 2006 with two counts of receiving stolen goods (a generator 2 and a bracelet) valued at over $500, in violation of G.L.1956 §§ 11-41-2 and 11 — 41-5 (counts 1-2); one count of receiving stolen…”
Mello v. Superior Court, 370 A.2d 1262 (R.I. 1977). · cites it 2× “1956 (1969 Reenactment) §§ 11-41-2 and 31-9-2, respectively. He was arraigned on May 5, 1975, pled not guilty, and released on $1,000 personal recognizance.”
State v. Crudup, 842 A.2d 1069 (R.I. 2004). · cites it 2× “1956 § 12-7-10, and unlawful possession of a stolen firearm in violation of G.L.1956 § 11-41-2. 3 . Rule 32(f) of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure provides: "The court shall not revoke probation or revoke a suspension of sentence or impose a sentence previously…”
State v. Ricci, 472 A.2d 291 (R.I. 1984). · cites it 2× “1956 (1969 Reenactment) §§ 11-41-2 and -5. 1 He was sentenced to four years at the Adult Correctional Institutions with two years suspended and two years’ probation to commence upon his release.”
State v. Taylor, 425 A.2d 1231 (R.I. 1981). · cites it 3× “1956 (1969 Reenactment) *1233 § 11-41-2, punishable under § 11-41-5. 1 On appeal the defendant makes the following assignments of error: that the trial justice erred in her instructions to the jury concerning the statutory presumption of knowledge in respect to stolen goods 2…”
In Re Vincent, 413 A.2d 78 (R.I. 1980). · cites it 3× “1956 (1969 Reenactment) *849 §11-41-2. 1 The facts underlying this proceeding are as follows.”
State v. Kurowski, 210 A.2d 873 (R.I. 1965). · cites it 7× “1956, §11-41-2, which provides in pertinent part as follows: “Every person who shall fraudulently receive any stolen * * * property, knowing the same to be stolen shall be deemed guilty of larceny * * * and the possession of any such stolen property shall be evidence of guilty…”
State v. Mann, 889 A.2d 164 (R.I. 2005). · cites it 2× “The state relied upon the matching serial numbers, not the aircraft cable, throughout trial to prove that the compactor was a stolen good under G.L.1956 § 11-41-2. 6 Accordingly, we hold that the out-of-court statement to which Mr.”
Show all 33 citing cases →
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.