Clatos v. Commonwealth
298 Ky. 851, 184 S.W.2d 125, 1944 Ky. LEXIS 1008 (1944)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Possession of stolen property creates a rebuttable prima facie presumption of guilt for the crime of knowingly receiving stolen property, shifting the burden to the possessor to provide a satisfactory explanation for their possession or lack of guilty knowledge.
Facts:
- Sometime between midnight and daybreak on February 16, 1943, Lester VanHoose went to his brother Earl VanHoose's barn and stole a dark Jersey cow, which was Earl's property.
- Lester VanHoose took the stolen cow to the packing house of Steve Ciatos.
- Lester VanHoose informed Steve Ciatos that the cow he was proposing to sell him was stolen from his brother, Earl VanHoose.
- Notwithstanding this information, Steve Ciatos bought and received the cow from Lester VanHoose.
- Immediately after acquiring the cow, Steve Ciatos killed her and instructed his butcher, Benny Ward, to skin and cut her up for sale in his meat market.
- Benny Ward, Ciatos's butcher, commented to Ciatos that the cow "was Earl’s—that it looked like the VanHoose cow."
Procedural Posture:
- On August 16, 1943, the grand jury of Johnson County returned an indictment against Steve Ciatos, charging him with the crime of feloniously and knowingly receiving stolen property (a Jersey cow valued at more than $20) from Lester VanHoose.
- Steve Ciatos was tried in the trial court and convicted.
- The trial court sentenced Steve Ciatos to serve a term of two years in the state penitentiary.
- Steve Ciatos, as appellant, sought reversal of that judgment before the Court of Appeals of Kentucky, contending the trial court erred: (1) in overruling his demurrer to the indictment; (2) in overruling his motion for a directed verdict for acquittal made at the close of the commonwealth’s evidence; and (3) in admitting incompetent and irrelevant evidence prejudicial to his substantial rights.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the possession of stolen property, combined with circumstantial evidence indicating guilty knowledge, provide sufficient grounds for a jury to convict an individual of knowingly receiving stolen property, even if the accused presents no evidence to rebut the statutory prima facie presumption of guilt?
Opinions:
Majority - Perry, Commissioner
Yes, the possession of stolen property, coupled with strong circumstantial evidence of guilty knowledge, provides sufficient grounds for a jury to convict an individual of knowingly receiving stolen property, especially when the accused offers no evidence to rebut the statutory prima facie presumption of guilt. The court affirmed the conviction, finding that the indictment properly charged all essential elements of the offense, thereby sufficiently notifying the defendant. Citing Kentucky Statute Section 1199, which makes possession of stolen goods prima facie evidence of guilt, the court noted that when the Commonwealth’s proof established the cow was stolen and found in Ciatos's possession, the burden shifted to Ciatos to demonstrate his lack of guilty knowledge or lawful acquisition. As Ciatos introduced no evidence to rebut this presumption, and given the circumstances (unusual hour of transaction, Ciatos's direct knowledge the cow was stolen, and the hurried killing and skinning of the cow to destroy evidence), the jury was justified in finding guilty knowledge. While the court acknowledged an error in admitting evidence about making hamburger from an unborn calf, it determined this error was not materially prejudicial to Ciatos's substantial rights, as the imposed sentence was within the statutory range and likely would not have been lighter even without the improper evidence.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the application of Kentucky's prima facie evidence rule in prosecutions for receiving stolen property, emphasizing that possession, when combined with strong circumstantial evidence of guilty knowledge, can be sufficient for conviction, especially if the defendant fails to offer a rebuttal. It underscores the importance of a defendant's explanation (or lack thereof) when faced with such a presumption. Additionally, the opinion illustrates that not all trial errors warrant reversal, particularly if they are deemed non-prejudicial to a defendant’s substantial rights, thereby setting a high bar for appellate intervention based on evidentiary mistakes.
