Receiving Stolen Property is either a felony or misdemeanor, depending on the value of the goods. Massachusetts General Law c 266 s 60. defines receiving stolen goods.
Receiving stolen property is a serious criminal offense that requires careful consideration of several key elements.
This comprehensive guide explores the legal aspects, implications, and key components of receiving stolen property charges under Massachusetts law.
Elements of the Offense
To prove a defendant guilty of receiving stolen property, the prosecution must establish three essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
- The property was stolen
- The defendant knew the property was stolen
- The defendant knowingly received, bought, or aided in concealing the stolen property
Stolen Property
The first element requires proving that the property in question was actually stolen. This means someone took and carried away the property without the owner’s consent, intending to permanently deprive the owner of it. Importantly, the prosecution does not need to prove who stole the property, only that it was stolen.
Knowledge of Stolen Status
The second element focuses on the defendant’s state of mind. The prosecution must demonstrate that the defendant knew or believed the property was stolen at the time they received it. This is a subjective standard based on the defendant’s actual knowledge or belief, not what a reasonable person might have known[1].
Proving knowledge can be challenging, as it involves determining someone’s mental state. Courts allow juries to infer knowledge based on circumstantial evidence, including:
- Possession of recently stolen goods
- Suspicious circumstances surrounding the acquisition
- Implausible explanations for possession
- Steeply discounted prices
- Cash-only transactions
- Large quantities of goods in the defendant’s possession
It’s important to note that negligent or reckless failure to inquire about the property’s origins is not sufficient to establish knowledge.
Receiving, Buying, or Concealing
The third element involves the defendant’s actions regarding the stolen property. This can be satisfied by proving the defendant:
- Received the property (took custody or control)
- Bought the property
- Aided in concealing the property
Importantly, the prosecution doesn’t need to show that the defendant personally possessed the stolen items. Exerting control over the property in some way is sufficient. Additionally, the defendant need not have profited from receiving or disposing of the stolen property.
Key Legal Considerations
Inference from Possession of Recently Stolen Goods
Juries may draw a permissible inference that the defendant knew property was stolen if they possessed recently stolen items. This inference can support a finding of knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt. However, judges must be cautious in applying this principle and ensure there’s a reasonable factual basis for its use.
Subsequent Knowledge
Even if a defendant didn’t initially know the property was stolen when they received it, they can still be guilty if they later learned of its stolen status and decided to keep it, depriving the owner of its use.
Constructive Possession
Direct physical possession of stolen property isn’t required for a conviction. Constructive possession, where the defendant has the power and intention to exercise control over the property, is sufficient. This can include situations where others hold the property as part of a joint criminal enterprise.
Concealment
Actions to conceal stolen property can include any purposeful steps to withhold the property from its rightful owner or make it more difficult for the owner to discover.
Valuation and Sentencing
The value of the stolen property plays a crucial role in determining the severity of the offense and potential penalties. As of April 13, 2018, Massachusetts law sets a threshold of $1,200 for felony charges of receiving stolen property. For cases involving property valued at more than $1,200, juries must make a specific finding on the value.
Judges should instruct juries to determine whether the value exceeds $1,200 if they reach a guilty verdict. This allows the judge to apply the appropriate sentencing range. Juries can use their general knowledge to evaluate property value without requiring expert testimony.
The $1,200 threshold is significant in receiving stolen property cases in Massachusetts for the following reasons:
- Felony vs. Misdemeanor Classification: The $1,200 value determines whether the offense is classified as a felony or a misdemeanor. Receiving stolen property valued at more than $1,200 is considered a felony, while receiving stolen property valued at $1,200 or less is a misdemeanor.
- Sentencing Range: The classification as a felony or misdemeanor affects the potential penalties and sentencing range available to the judge. Felony charges typically carry more severe punishments than misdemeanors.
- Jury Determination: If the value of the stolen property may exceed $1,200, the judge must instruct the jury to determine whether the Commonwealth has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the value exceeds this threshold. This determination is made separately from the guilty verdict.
- Verdict Slip: The jury must indicate on the verdict slip whether they have found that the value of the stolen property exceeds $1,200, in addition to their guilty or not guilty verdict.
- Recent Legislative Change: The $1,200 threshold was established on April 13, 2018, through St. 2018, c. 69. Prior to this date, the felony threshold was $250. This change applies to offenses committed on or after April 13, 2018.
- Applies to Multiple Related Offenses: The $1,200 threshold not only applies to receiving stolen property (G.L. c. 266, § 60) but also to larceny (§ 30) and willful or wanton destruction of property (§ 127).
- Not an Element of the Offense: While the value affects the severity of the punishment, it is not considered an essential element of the offense itself. However, for constitutional reasons, it must be determined by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Evidentiary Standard: Jurors are allowed to use their general knowledge in evaluating the value of property. Expert testimony on value is not required.
This threshold is crucial in determining the severity of the charge and potential consequences for defendants accused of receiving stolen property. It reflects a legislative decision to differentiate between more serious cases involving higher-value property and less serious cases involving lower-value items.
Defenses and Legal Strategies
Innocent Explanation
If a defendant offers an innocent explanation for possessing allegedly stolen property, the prosecution isn’t required to disprove this explanation beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury weighs the credibility of the explanation against the other evidence presented.
Reputation Evidence
Defendants may introduce evidence of their reputation as an honest merchant to challenge the prosecution’s claim that they knew the property was stolen.
Statute of Limitations
For charges involving concealment of stolen property, the statute of limitations begins running from the date of the initial concealment. However, any subsequent affirmative acts to continue concealing the property can restart the limitations period.
Related Offenses and Double Jeopardy
Larceny and Receiving Stolen Property
A defendant cannot be convicted of both stealing and receiving the same property, as receiving stolen property requires that the items already be stolen at the time of receipt. If charged with both offenses, it’s up to the jury to decide which charge to convict on based on the evidence presented.
Breaking and Entering
While a defendant can’t be convicted of both larceny and receiving the same stolen property, they can be convicted of both breaking and entering with intent to commit larceny and receiving the stolen property obtained during that break-in[1].
Venue and Jurisdictional Issues
Charges for receiving stolen property can be brought either where the goods were stolen or where they were received. The prosecution isn’t required to prove the specific location of the theft or receipt, and circumstantial evidence can be used to establish the place of receipt.
Receiving stolen property is a complex offense that requires careful consideration of multiple legal elements. Prosecutors must prove not only that the property was stolen, but also that the defendant knew of its stolen status and took actions to receive, buy, or conceal it. The value of the stolen property plays a significant role in determining the severity of the offense and potential penalties.
Defendants facing charges of receiving stolen property have several potential defenses available, including offering innocent explanations for possession and challenging the prosecution’s evidence of knowledge. Understanding the nuances of this offense, including its relationship to other crimes like larceny and breaking and entering, is crucial for both prosecutors and defense attorneys.
As laws and legal interpretations continue to evolve, it’s essential for legal professionals to stay updated on the latest developments in this area of criminal law. By thoroughly understanding the elements of the offense, potential defenses, and related legal issues, attorneys can better serve their clients and ensure fair application of the law in cases involving receiving stolen property.
MASSACHUSETTS CRIMINAL LAWYER
Attorney Patrick Donovan was an Assistant District Attorney. As a prosecutor, he handled thousands of criminal prosecutions. Attorney Donovan handled criminal arraignments, pre-trials, bench, and jury trials. As a Criminal Defense Attorney, Patrick Donovan puts that experience to work for you.
CALL THE LAW OFFICE OF PATRICK T. DONOVAN TODAY FOR YOUR FREE INITIAL CONSULTATION AT (617) 479-1800.
