Opinion
41917.
SUBMITTED APRIL 5, 1966.
DECIDED APRIL 14, 1966. REHEARING DENIED APRIL 25, 1966.
Receiving stolen goods. Washington City Court. Before Judge Evans.
Casey Thigpen, for appellant.
The evidence was sufficient to warrant conviction for the offense of receiving stolen goods.
SUBMITTED APRIL 5, 1966 — DECIDED APRIL 14, 1966 — REHEARING DENIED APRIL 25, 1966.
On December 13, Harrison, a witness for the State, testified that he missed some bags of Purina feed, the property of Green Acres Poultry Farms, from his chicken house and later located them in an outhouse on the premises of one Nelson. The feed was identified by the initials "GAPG" on each bag. The next day the bags were still there; the sheriff's office was alerted and the premises placed under surveillance. At about 6 p. m. a blue 1965 Chevrolet pulled into the yard, someone called the name "Maggie"; a man got out of the car, went in the direction of the outhouse, returned with bags of feed which he placed in the car, and it then drove off toward the highway, followed by the observer's automobile. It was kept in sight until stopped on the highway. The defendant, Maggie Reese, was driving; her husband was in the car with her. The stolen feed was found in the trunk. In her statement to the jury the defendant admitted driving to Nelson's house, that she went in the house and "after a while Bennie came to the door and called me and said Uncle Willie and Duke want us to take them off a little piece and I said where and he said out in the country and I said listen, I don't want no more stuff in the car like you had Sunday night and he said no and I said did you take that feed out of my car that I got at Thomson." She maintained that she did not know the feed was in the car until she was stopped by the sheriff, that after the sheriff examined it and left, she informed the men in the car that she did not know the feed was in the car and was going back to the house and throw it out; that Nelson then suggested they put it out on a dirt road where he could reclaim it, and this was done, and that she knew nothing else about the transaction.
Knowledge that the goods in question were stolen is an essential element of the crime of receiving stolen goods. Sampson v. State, 60 Ga. App. 512 ( 4 S.E.2d 290). It may, however, be inferred from circumstances which would lead a reasonable person to believe that the goods found in his possession were in fact stolen. Birdsong v. State, 120 Ga. 850 ( 48 S.E. 329). In assessing the defendant's unsworn statement, the jury may believe it in part and disbelieve it in part ( Beatty v. State, 54 Ga. App. 280 (1) ( 187 S.E. 686)). The evidence here demanded a finding that the feed which the defendant was hauling in her car was stolen by Nelson. The evidence as to guilty knowledge is circumstantial, but reveals that she was worried about chicken feed being found in her car and that she had protested hauling any more stuff. The defense raised was merely that the defendant did not know the stolen grain was in the car, but from all the circumstances of the case, including her statement showing knowledge of prior illegal transactions in which she was involved with her husband and Nelson, indubitably, the jury was at liberty to disbelieve the explanation offered.
Judgment affirmed. Nichols, P. J., and Hall, J., concur.