## Facts

- John Lawrence’s truck was stolen from his home in Hammond, Louisiana, on the night of February 22, 1994; it contained several thousand dollars in construction tools.
- In the early morning of February 23, 1994, Ronnie Chester came to Charlie Johnson’s home in Ponchatoula with another person who carried a toolbox containing specialized heavy-construction wrenches.
- Chester offered to sell the toolbox and wrenches to Johnson for $35, stating he needed gas money, and accepted $30.
- Some tools bore Lawrence’s initials, but the initials were not readily visible when the tools were displayed.
- Johnson later learned the tools were stolen; Lawrence recovered the tools from a shed behind Johnson’s home two days after reporting the theft.
- Lawrence testified that four offset wrenches cost about $100 each, and that Chester sold about $800 worth of equipment for $30.
- Chester presented no evidence explaining how he acquired the tools or providing an innocent explanation for possessing and selling them.

## Issues

1. Whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Chester knew or had good reason to believe the tools were stolen, as required by La. R.S. 14:69.

## Decision

- The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the court of appeal’s judgment overturning the conviction.
- The court held the evidence was constitutionally sufficient for a rational jury to infer Chester’s guilty knowledge from the circumstances.
- The conviction and sentence for possession of stolen property were reinstated.

## Legal Principles

- To prove possession of stolen property under La. R.S. 14:69, the State must show the defendant possessed/procured/received the property and knew or had good reason to believe it was stolen.
- Under Jackson v. Virginia sufficiency review, the question is whether any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt when evidence is viewed most favorably to the prosecution.
- In circumstantial-evidence cases, once the jury reasonably rejects a defendant’s hypothesis of innocence, that hypothesis fails unless another reasonable hypothesis raises a reasonable doubt.
- Guilty knowledge may be inferred from circumstances such as recent possession after a theft, a grossly inadequate sales price relative to value, the specialized nature of the goods, and the absence of a credible innocent explanation.

## Conclusion

The court reinstated Chester’s conviction, holding that recent possession and an unusually low-price sale of specialized stolen tools, without an innocent explanation, permitted a rational jury to infer the knowledge element required for possession of stolen property.


State v. Chester, 707 So. 2d 973 (La. 1997)