In State V

In State v. Eichelberger, the defendant was tried in Washington for trafficking in stolen property. He claimed that the evidence against him was insufficient as a matter of law to support a conviction for trafficking in stolen property because there was no evidence that he knew the compact discs he found were stolen. The Washington Court of Appeals held that:

A) mere proof that a defendant sold stolen property that was in his possession did not indicate that he knew or should have known the property was stolen.
B) the jury was entitled to find that Eichelberger had subjective knowledge of and disregarded the substantial risk that a wrongful act would occur when he sold the CDs to the pawn shop.
C) under the circumstances, no reasonable trier of fact could have been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the property Eichelberger found was in fact stolen and that he knew it.
D) the proof was based upon circumstantial evidence alone, and that type of evidence, by itself, cannot reach proof beyond a reasonable doubt.