State v. Mull

To be found guilty of theft by receiving, the state must prove that defendant must have known or believed that the property was stolen. Circumstantial evidence may be relied on to make reasonable inferences but, if the conclusion requires too great of an inferential leap, then it will be insufficient.

Defendant was on post-prison supervision when he shot at his girlfriend’s garage with a pistol that was reported as stolen. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his motion for a judgment of acquittal on first-degree theft by receiving. The State argued, and the lower court agreed, that because Defendant was a felon, and it was unlawful for him to own a firearm, he should have known any firearm he could obtain would be stolen. To be found guilty of theft by receiving, the State must prove that Defendant must have known or believed that the property was stolen. Circumstantial evidence may be relied on to make reasonable inferences but, if the conclusion requires too great of an inferential leap, then it will be insufficient. The Court held that the State’s argument was insufficient because there is no relationship on record between Defendant’s status as a felon and knowledge that a firearm is stolen. Reversed on theft by receiving and remanded for resentencing, otherwise affirmed.