If any person obtains control over stolen property knowing or believing the property to have been stolen, and such offense involves two or more separate stolen things of value each of which is the property of a separate owner, such commission of theft constitutes prima facie evidence that the person is engaged in the business of buying, selling, or otherwise disposing of stolen goods for a profit.
Source: L. 77: Entire section added, p. 890, § 3, effective July 1. L. 81: Entire section amended, p. 989, § 1, effective April 23. L. 87: Entire section amended, p. 669, § 3, effective July 1. L. 2013: Entire section amended, (HB 13-1160), ch. 373, p. 2198, § 4, effective June 5.
ANNOTATION
Purpose of section. The apparent purpose of this section is to assist the prosecution in proving the "fencing" element of § 18-4-410 (6). People v. Williams, 651 P.2d 899 (Colo. 1982); People v. Salazar, 715 P.2d 1265 (Colo. App. 1985).
Presumption of former section violative of due process. The value of a stolen article has no significant relationship to the business of buying, selling, or otherwise disposing of stolen goods for a profit, as merely proving the fact of value does not create a probability that one is engaged in such business. Thus, the criminal statutory presumption found in this section prior to the 1981 amendment did not satisfy due process standards. Brown v. District Court, 197 Colo. 219, 591 P.2d 99 (1979).
Instruction to jury correct. Where the evidence supported the inference that the defendant possessed three or more separate items belonging to separate owners, the trial court correctly instructed the jury in accordance with this section even though no single count of information charged possession of "three or more separate things of value". People v. Salazar, 715 P.2d 1265 (Colo. App. 1985).
Applied in People v. Williams, 651 P.2d 899 (Colo. 1982).