D was arrested for the crime of receiving a stolen automobile. A friend of D drove up, and D came over to the car and was ready to get into the car when the police told him to freeze. D ran, but at trial, D admitted that he knew the car was stolen and he was going to get into to ride around knowing that the car was stolen. The trial court accepted the plea and found D guilty. D appealed. The court concluded, however, that the facts were insufficient to establish that D had 'received' the stolen automobile. It determined that receipt equates with possession. The court noted further that 'possession' is defined as ''intentional control and dominion.'' There was no evidence that D intended to control the vehicle, or that he and the driver were on a joint or common mission, or that D was in a position to assert control or dominion over the driver of the vehicle. Because D was like an innocent passenger, he was not guilty of receiving stolen property. The State appealed.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.