Motion to quash a bindover on a charge of receiving or concealing stolen property over $20,000; People v Pratt; Inferring consciousness of guilt from evidence of lying or deception; Effect of taking steps to return the property; Distinguishing People v Fortuin

The court held that the evidence presented at defendant-Kiesgen’s preliminary exam was sufficient to establish probable cause he “committed the crime of receiving or concealing stolen property valued over $20,000.” Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in binding him over on this charge, and the circuit court erred in “quashing the bindover and dismissing the charge.” In concluding that sufficient evidence supported the district court’s bindover decision, the court noted that the vehicle at issue “was listed for sale for $28,500. Kiesgen” bought it for $9,000 the same day it was reported stolen. He realized “the sale price was ‘too good to be true’ and based on his inspection of the vehicle, he located documents titled in” the vehicle’s owner’s (C) name. Both C and a police officer told him it was stolen. He “initially represented that he decided not to buy the vehicle. When confronted with surveillance footage disproving his representation, he eventually admitted to buying” it. The court noted that his “initial statements to the police” supported an inference of guilt. In addition, “even after being told that the vehicle was stolen and directed to turn it over to the police, Kiesgen did not do so. Instead, he continued to possess the stolen vehicle for several days. Indeed, it was not until the police obtained a search warrant and detained him that he asked one of his employees to take the police to the locked, off-site warehouse where the stolen vehicle was being stored. Based on this record, it is clear that for several days after being told that the vehicle was stolen and being ordered to return it, Kiesgen retained possession of it and concealed it inside a warehouse.” Citing Fortuin, he argued he should not have been bound over because he took steps to return it. But upon learning the vehicle was stolen, “Kiesgen did not immediately announce that he did not intend to continue possession of the stolen vehicle. He instead inquired about recovering the purchase price” and retained a lawyer. Then, instead of returning it “as directed, Kiesgen stopped communicating with law enforcement.” The court concluded that, based on his “behavior, there is, at a minimum, a question of fact as to whether he continued to willfully possess the stolen property despite being told that it was stolen and that it needed to be surrendered to law enforcement.” Reversed and remanded for reinstatement of the charge.