Mere Possession Not Enough for Receiving Stolen Property Charge
Posted in General,Theft on September 5, 2026
A recent Pennsylvania Superior Court decision provides an important reminder that simply possessing stolen property does not automatically make someone guilty of Receiving Stolen Property (RSP). In Commonwealth v. Alvarez, the Superior Court affirmed the dismissal of a felony Receiving Stolen Property charge because the Commonwealth failed to establish evidence that the defendant knew the vehicle was stolen.
For anyone charged with Receiving Stolen Property in Pennsylvania, this decision highlights one of the most important defenses available—the prosecution must prove guilty knowledge, not merely possession.
The Facts of the Case
Alvarez worked for a towing company. While hauling a vehicle in Pennsylvania, he was stopped by the Pennsylvania State Police, and the police discovered that the vehicle was reported as being stolen. During the traffic stop, the trooper called Alvarez’s employer, and the employer stated that the truck had been abandoned for years and that the property owner wanted it removed. However, the employee explained that his employer had told him to tell the police a different story—that the employer had purchased the truck and was transporting it to a buyer.
Receiving Stolen Property Requires Guilty Knowledge
Alvarez was charged with Receiving Stolen Property under 18 Pa.C.S. § 3925(a). That law makes it illegal to intentionally receive, retain, or dispose of property knowing it has been stolen or believing it probably has been stolen. To obtain a conviction, prosecutors must prove three essential elements:
- The property was stolen.
- The defendant possessed or controlled the property.
- The defendant knew, or had reason to believe, the property was stolen.
The third element—guilty knowledge—is often the most heavily contested issue.
Mere Possession Is Not Enough for Receiving Stolen Property Charge
One of the most significant aspects of the court’s opinion is its reaffirmation of longstanding Pennsylvania law: Possession of stolen property alone does not permit an inference or belief that the defendant knew the property was stolen. The Superior Court relied on prior decisions holding that guilty knowledge cannot be established solely because someone happened to possess stolen property. Instead, prosecutors must present additional evidence connecting the defendant to the theft or demonstrating awareness that the property was stolen.
How Prosecutors Can Prove Guilty Knowledge
Because direct evidence of a person’s knowledge is uncommon, Pennsylvania courts allow prosecutors to rely on circumstantial evidence. Examples include:
- The person actually admits that they knew that the property was stolen.
- Giving false or inconsistent explanations about possession of the property.
- Attempting to flee police.
- Possessing property with altered serial numbers or identifying marks.
- Purchasing valuable property for an obviously suspiciously low price.
- Evidence connecting the defendant to the theft itself.
- Other circumstances demonstrating the defendant knew the property was stolen.
However, the evidence must support a reasonable inference that the defendant actually knew—or believed—the property was stolen.
Why the Superior Court Dismissed the Stolen Property Charge
The Superior Court concluded the Commonwealth failed to establish even a prima facie case at the preliminary hearing. The evidence showed: The defendant was simply performing his job as a tow truck driver. The employer had handled the purchase of the truck;
Alvarez had no involvement in acquiring the vehicle; there was no evidence Alvarez knew the truck had been reported stolen before police stopped him; Alvarez only learned that his employer had provided conflicting explanations after overhearing the employer speak with police during the traffic stop.
Because the Commonwealth failed to present evidence of guilty knowledge, the trial court properly granted the defendant’s motion for habeas corpus and dismissed the Receiving Stolen Property charge. The Superior Court affirmed that decision.
Why This Decision Matters
Receiving Stolen Property charges often arise in situations where someone unknowingly possesses property that later turns out to be stolen. The Commonwealth must prove more than simple possession. Prosecutors must establish evidence that the defendant actually knew—or believed—that the property was stolen. This decision serves as an important reminder that criminal convictions cannot rest on speculation or assumptions.
This is a good example of the importance of having an experienced criminal defense attorney provide representation and forcing the prosecution to present evidence to support a charge. Attorney Jason S. Dunkle has successfully fought and won many cases for clients.
Experienced Pennsylvania Receiving Stolen Property Defense
If you have been charged with Receiving Stolen Property, an experienced criminal defense attorney can evaluate whether the Commonwealth has sufficient evidence to prove guilty knowledge. In many cases, challenging the prosecution’s evidence at the preliminary hearing can significantly weaken—or even eliminate—the charges before trial.
An experienced defense lawyer will examine:
- Whether police can establish guilty knowledge.
- Whether circumstantial evidence actually supports the charge.
- Whether witnesses are making unsupported assumptions.
- Whether a motion to dismiss is appropriate before trial.
Early legal intervention can often produce the best outcome.
Contact JD Law P.C.
If you have been charged with Receiving Stolen Property or any other criminal offense in Pennsylvania, contact JD Law P.C. Attorney Jason S. Dunkle has represented thousands of clients throughout Central Pennsylvania and aggressively challenges weak criminal charges at every stage of the proceedings.
For a free case review, contact JD Law by email or leave a message at (814) 689-9139. Email is the preferred method of communication, as phone calls are directed to voicemail due to the high volume of spam and unsolicited calls.