IN RE LEONARD MOULTRIE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In re Leonard Moultrie, Minor.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
April 25, 2000
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 211148
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 95-332020
LEONARD MOULTRIE,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Collins, P.J., and Neff and Smolenski, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant appeals as of right his conviction for receiving and concealing stolen property over
$100, MCL 750.535; MSA 28.803. We affirm.
In determining whether sufficient evidence has been presented to sustain a conviction, a
reviewing court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, and determine
whether any rational finder of fact could have found that the essential elements of the crime were proven
beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Wolfe, 440 Mich 508, 515; 489 NW2d 748 (1992).
A charge of receiving and concealing stolen property requires proof (1) that property was
stolen, (2) that the defendant bought, received, concealed, possessed, or aided in the concealment of
the property, (3) that the property is identified as property previously stolen, and (4) that the defendant
had knowledge of the stolen nature of the property. People v Allay, 171 Mich App 602, 608; 430
NW2d 794 (1988).
There was sufficient evidence to allow the court to conclude that defendant knew the property
was stolen. Where the steering column and dashboard were removed, the door lock had been punched
out, and no one had keys or could explain the ownership of the vehicle, the court could conclude that a
reasonable person must have known that the vehicle was stolen. People v Scott, 154 Mich App 615;
397 NW2d 852 (1986).
-1
The court could also properly find that defendant received and concealed the property. The act
of dismantling a stolen vehicle is sufficient to establish this element of the crime. People v Toodle, 155
Mich App 539, 552-554; 400 NW2d 670 (1986). Where police observed defendant bent over the
fender of the vehicle with a screwdriver in his hand, the court could find that defendant was in
possession of the stolen property.
Affirmed.
/s/ Jeffrey G. Collins
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
