N.C.P.I.—Crim. 216.47

NOTE WELL: Use this instruction only when the

indictment alleges that the property was stolen. Use

N.C.P.I.-Crim. 216-49A when the indictment alleges

that the property was embezzled, taken by false

pretenses, taken in a manner constituting larceny by an

employee or taken in any other felonious manner

except larceny.

The defendant has been charged with felonious possession of

stolen goods, which is possessing goods worth more than $1000 dollars,

which the defendant knew or had reasonable grounds to believe had been

stolen.

For you to find the defendant guilty of this offense, the state must

prove five things beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, that (describe property, e.g., a color TV set) was stolen.1

Property is stolen when it is taken and carried away without the owner's

consent by someone who intends at the time to deprive the owner of its

use permanently and knows that he is not entitled to take it.

Second, that this property was worth more than $1000.

Third, that the defendant possessed this property.

NOTE WELL: When constructive possession is at issue,

or when a fuller definition of actual possession is

desired, incorporate the relevant portions of N.C.P.I.-

Crim. 104.41 at this point.

Fourth, that the defendant knew or had reasonable grounds to

believe that the property had been stolen.

And Fifth, that the defendant possessed this property with a

dishonest purpose. (Describe purpose, e.g., "Converting it to his own

use") would be a dishonest purpose.

If you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that

(describe property) was stolen, and that this property was worth more

than $1000, and that on or about the alleged date the defendant

possessed this property and knew or had reasonable grounds to believe

that it was stolen and that the defendant possessed this property for a

dishonest purpose it would be your duty to return a verdict of guilty of

felonious possession of stolen goods. If you do not so find, or if you

have a reasonable doubt as to one or more of these things, you would

not return a verdict of guilty of felonious possession of stolen goods2 but

must determine whether the defendant is guilty of non-felonious

possession of stolen goods. Non-felonious possession of stolen goods

differs from felonious possession of stolen goods in that the State need

not prove that the property was worth more than $1000.

If you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that this

property was stolen, and that on or about the alleged date the defendant

possessed this property and that the defendant knew or had reasonable

grounds to believe that it was stolen, and that the defendant possessed

this property for a dishonest purpose, it would be your duty to return a

verdict of guilty of non-felonious possession of stolen goods. If you do

not so find, or if you have a reasonable doubt as to one or more of these

things, it would be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty.