## Facts

- Nathan Sosh parked his 1993 Chevy S-10 pickup at a Big Lots in Evansville, Indiana, leaving the keys in the ignition.
- About 30–45 minutes later, the truck was missing; Sosh reported it stolen and provided identifying information to police.
- That night, Officer Jeremy Matthews saw a truck matching the description leaving a motel parking lot about two miles from the store.
- Matthews followed the truck into another motel lot, stopped behind it, and activated emergency lights; other officers arrived.
- Kail Fortson was the driver; there was one passenger, who was released.
- Fortson was handcuffed and told he was being arrested for auto theft; he was belligerent and accused police of making a racially motivated stop.
- Fortson did not flee or attempt to conceal the truck and said it had been “loaned” to him; police did not investigate who allegedly loaned it.
- Sosh testified he did not know Fortson and did not give him permission to use the truck.
- A jury convicted Fortson of receiving stolen property; the Court of Appeals reversed for insufficient evidence of knowledge, and the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer.

## Issues

1. Whether unexplained possession of recently stolen property, without additional incriminating circumstances, is sufficient to prove the knowledge element of receiving stolen property.

## Decision

- The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the reversal of Fortson’s conviction.
- The court held that mere unexplained possession of recently stolen property, standing alone, is insufficient to support a conviction for receiving stolen property.
- The evidence showed only recent possession and lack of owner consent, without independent facts permitting an inference beyond a reasonable doubt that Fortson knew the truck was stolen.

## Legal Principles

- Receiving stolen property requires proof that the defendant knew the property was stolen at the time of receipt or possession.
- Although recent unexplained possession may support an inference of theft, it does not by itself establish the knowledge required for receiving stolen property.
- To prove knowledge for receiving stolen property, the State must present evidence beyond possession, such as suspicious circumstances, inconsistent or demonstrably false explanations, concealment, flight, or similar indicia tied to knowledge.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that the State failed to prove Fortson’s knowledge that the truck was stolen because it relied on recent possession alone; without additional evidence of guilty knowledge, a receiving stolen property conviction cannot stand.


Fortson v. State, 919 N.E.2d 1136 (Ind. 2010)