State v. Couet

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the jury was not required to accept the defendant’s explanation that he was just using the stolen vehicle while a friend was on vacation
• evidence sufficient where defendant offered unsubstantiated and improbable story that co-worker, identified only as “Bill,” loaned him the car while “Bill” was on vacation
• evidence that appellant was in possession of car stolen three weeks earlier was sufficient to support inference that defendant was aware of the owner’s lack of consent
• evidence is sufficient if the defendant gives a false or improbable explanation for possessing the stolen property
• holding that \ bare possession of recently stolen property alone is not sufficient to justify a conviction\ requiring proof that the defendant knew the property was stolen
• defendant was driving vehicle and gave improbable explanation for his possession

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).