In State V

In State v. McClure, the defendant had been convicted of kidnapping and possession of stolen property. The property was allegedly taken in a home invasion [burglary] and was traced to the defendant when he sold the property at a pawn shop. The defendant complained that the use of the presumption or inference that the possessor of recently stolen property has knowledge that it was stolen should not have been allowed in his case. In order for the doctrine of that possession of recently stolen property to indicate knowledge that it was stolen, the government must show that the property was actually stolen, that it was found in the defendant's possession, and that the possession of the defendant was fairly recent after the unlawful taking. The theory is that when a person is found in possession of recently stolen property, the law presumes that the person is the one who had stolen the property. Did the appellate court find that the use of this presumption or inference was appropriate to help establish guilt for the defendant of possession of stolen property? Explain the reasoning of the appellate court.