Mott v. State

Appellant was convicted of the offense of “buying, receiving, concealing, etc., stolen property.” Code 1923, § 4912.

He excepts to tbe trial court’s charging the jury orally that, the other elements of the offense being duly shown, it would suffice, for a conviction,' that they be convinced by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he had “reasonable grounds for believing” that the property in question had been stolen, and cites, as sustaining his contention for error in this regard, our recent case of Maughan v. State, ante, p. 259, 133 So. 918.

But the opinion in this case of Maughan v.…