Have you or your loved one been charged with the above-reference offense? If so, call Attorney Scambio for a free consultation at 508-796-5737.
The Massachusetts Legislature defines Receiving Stolen Property under Massachusetts General Law Chapter 266 §60 as follows:
Section 60. Whoever buys, receives or aids in the concealment of stolen or embezzled property, knowing it to have been stolen or embezzled, or whoever with intent to defraud buys, receives or aids in the concealment of property, knowing it to have been obtained from a person by false pretense of carrying on a business in the ordinary course of trade or whoever obtains or exerts control over property in the custody of any law enforcement agency, or any individual acting on behalf of a law enforcement agency, which is explicitly represented to such person by any law enforcement officer or any individual acting on behalf of a law enforcement agency as being stolen and who intends to deprive its rightful owner permanently of the use and enjoyment of said property shall be punished as follows: if the value of such property does not exceed $1,200, for a first offense by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than 21/2 years or by a fine of not more than $3,000; if the value of such property does not exceed $1,200, for a second or subsequent offense by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than 21/2 years or by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 5 years or by a fine of not more than $5,000 or by both such fine and imprisonment; or if the value of such property exceeds $1,200 by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than 21/2 years or by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 5 years or by a fine of not more than $5,000 or by both such fine and imprisonment.
It shall not be a defense that the property was obtained by means other than through the commission of a theft offense if the property was explicitly represented to the accused as having been obtained through the commission of a theft offense.
A law enforcement officer may arrest any person without warrant that the officer has probable cause to believe has committed an offense under this section and the value of the property stolen exceeds $250.
The model jury instructions for use in the District Court requires the Commonwealth to prove the following in order for the Commonwealth to prove each element of the offense. The Commonwealth must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt at trial:
First: That the property in question was stolen;
Second: That the defendant knew that the property had been
stolen; and
Third: That the defendant knowingly (had the stolen property in
his [her] possession) (bought the stolen property) (aided in
concealing the stolen property).
To prove the first element, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the property was stolen – that is, that someone had taken and carried it away without right and without the consent of the owner, while intending to deprive the owner of it permanently. The Commonwealth is not required to prove who it was who stole the property.
The Commonwealth must also prove that the defendant knew or believed that the property was stolen. This is a question of the defendant’s actual knowledge or belief at the time. Even if you find that, under the circumstances, a prudent person would have known or believed that the property was stolen, the defendant cannot be found guilty unless the Commonwealth has proved that he (she) actually knew that the property was stolen, or at least believed that it was stolen.
A person’s knowledge is a question of fact. Because you cannot look directly into someone’s mind, a person’s knowledge is normally shown by inferences from all the facts and circumstances surrounding the event. You may infer that the defendant knew that the goods were stolen if the Commonwealth has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant (possessed) (bought) (helped to conceal) recently stolen goods, and if the facts and circumstances in this case support an inference that the defendant knew that those goods were stolen. You should consider all the facts and circumstances surrounding the defendant’s alleged (possession) (purchase) (concealment) of stolen goods in deciding whether or not it is reasonable for you to draw such an inference, and in determining A person’s knowledge is a question of fact. Because you cannot look directly into someone’s mind, a person’s knowledge is normally shown by inferences from all the facts and circumstances surrounding the event. You may infer that the defendant knew that the goods were stolen if the Commonwealth has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant (possessed) (bought) (helped to conceal) recently stolen goods, and if the facts and circumstances in this case support an inference that the defendant knew that those goods were stolen. You should consider all the facts and circumstances surrounding the defendant’s alleged (possession) (purchase) (concealment) of stolen goods in deciding whether or not it is reasonable for you to draw such an inference, and in determining
Finally, the Commonwealth must show that the defendant knowingly “received” the property. A person “receives” property by knowingly taking custody or control of it. It is not necessary that the defendant personally possessed the stolen property, as long as it is proved that he (she) knowingly exerted control over it in some way.
If you have been charged with this offense and need a trial attorney with real trial experience and trial solutions, or if you have any questions related to this criminal offense, call Attorney Scambio today at 508-796-5737. Remember, before you decide whether to make any statements to law enforcement, discuss that decision with a competent attorney. Attorney Scambio is available six (6) days a week and will take your call to discuss assisting you in your criminal matter.