O'Sullivan v. State

Appellant, Bernard O’Sullivan, appeals from a judgment and sentence entered after appellant was found guilty in a non-jury trial of buying, receiving or concealing stolen property.

O’Sullivan contends that the trial court erred in finding him guilty because there was insufficient evidence adduced to support the conviction. We do not agree.

The necessary ingredient of the offense of receiving stolen property, knowing it to have been stolen, is knowledge on the receiver’s part at the time he receives the thing stolen, that the property is stolen, or of such fact as would put a person of ordinary…