Hurston v. State
1991 Ga. App. LEXIS 1753, 202 Ga. App. 311, 414 S.E.2d 303 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A passenger in a stolen vehicle may be convicted of theft by receiving stolen property if circumstantial evidence, beyond mere presence, establishes that the passenger exerted some control over the vehicle and knew or should have known it was stolen.
Facts:
- On June 11, 1989, a 1986 Pontiac Fiero belonging to Stella Burns was stolen from a parking lot.
- Later that night, sheriff's deputies observed Demetrious Reese driving the stolen Fiero with Iliya Hurston in the passenger seat.
- Reese parked at a convenience store and went inside, leaving Hurston alone in the vehicle with the engine running.
- When deputies began following the Fiero, Reese initiated a high-speed chase exceeding 100 mph, attempted to run the police vehicle into a wall, and eventually crashed.
- After the crash, Reese fled on foot, and Hurston also exited the car and appeared ready to run before being apprehended.
- The vehicle's owner testified that the steering wheel was damaged, it was being driven without keys, and personal papers were scattered on the floor.
- Hurston testified he had been suspicious about the ownership of the vehicle because Reese, a teenager, seemed too young to own it.
- Hurston also testified that he did not know the car was stolen until Reese admitted it during the police chase.
Procedural Posture:
- Iliya Hurston was tried jointly with Demetrious Reese in a trial court.
- A jury convicted Hurston of theft by receiving stolen property.
- Hurston filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court denied.
- Hurston (appellant) appealed the denial of his motion to the Court of Appeals of Georgia, arguing the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a passenger's presence in a recently stolen vehicle, combined with suspicious behavior, an attempt to flee, and the driver temporarily leaving the passenger alone in the running car, sufficient evidence to prove the passenger possessed or controlled the vehicle with guilty knowledge to support a conviction for theft by receiving stolen property?
Opinions:
Majority - Andrews, Judge
Yes, a passenger's presence combined with other incriminating circumstances is sufficient evidence to support a conviction for theft by receiving stolen property. Guilt may be inferred from possession in conjunction with other evidence of knowledge, and guilty knowledge can be inferred from circumstances that would excite suspicion in an ordinary prudent person. In this case, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find Hurston knew or should have known the vehicle was stolen based on his own admitted suspicion, the damaged steering wheel, the messy interior, his suspicious behavior at the convenience store, and his attempt to flee. Furthermore, the jury could conclude that Hurston possessed or controlled the vehicle because Reese left him alone in the car with the engine running, which was sufficient to show he exerted the requisite control.
Dissenting - Sognier, Chief Judge
No, the evidence was insufficient to establish the essential element of 'receiving,' which requires acquiring possession or control of the property. The record is devoid of evidence that Hurston exercised or intended to exercise any dominion or control over the car. A defendant's 'mere presence' as a passenger in a stolen automobile is insufficient to establish possession or control, as the driver is held to be in prima facie exclusive possession. The fact that Hurston was briefly left alone in the car is not the type of 'other incriminating circumstance' needed to overcome this principle. The state's circumstantial evidence did not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, and thus the conviction should be reversed.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for clarifying the scope of liability for passengers in stolen vehicles under theft by receiving statutes. The majority's holding blurs the line between 'mere presence' and criminal possession, suggesting that a combination of guilty knowledge and a brief moment of potential control (being left alone in the running car) can be sufficient for a conviction. This expands potential criminal liability for passengers and lowers the evidentiary bar for prosecutors. The dissent, in contrast, argues for a stricter interpretation, requiring more direct evidence of a passenger's exercise of dominion or control over the property, thereby protecting individuals who might be passively present in a vehicle without being a party to the crime.
