PRINGLE, Chief Justice.
Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of receiving stolen goods under 1967 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 40-5-2(1). Defendant's primary contention for reversal is that the evidence was insufficient to show that he knew the goods he purchased were stolen, such knowledge being an essential element of the crime of which he was convicted.
The People confess error and remind us that there must be proof of some circumstances showing knowledge...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
