PA Superior Court: Possession of a Stolen Truck Alone Does Not Establish a Prima Facie Case of Receiving Stolen Property

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided Commonwealth v. Alvarez, 2026 PA Super 171 (Pa. Super. Aug. 3, 2026), holding that the Commonwealth failed to establish a prima facie case of receiving stolen property against a tow truck driver whom police stopped while he was towing a stolen truck for his employer. The Commonwealth proved that the truck was stolen and that the defendant had it. It did not produce any evidence that he knew or had reason to know it was stolen. Because possession alone does not establish guilty knowledge, the Superior Court affirmed the order granting the defendant’s habeas corpus motion and quashing the charge.

What happened in Commonwealth v. Alvarez?

On October 19, 2024, the owner of a red Volvo truck reported it stolen. About two weeks later, a state trooper pulled the defendant over in Monroe County while he was towing the truck. The defendant, who spoke only broken English, called his employer, who ran a towing business in New Jersey and had sent him to tow the truck. With the defendant within earshot, the employer told the trooper that a property owner had asked him to remove the truck because it had been sitting there for years. Speaking through an interpreter, the defendant then told the troopers that the employer had given him a different story: that the employer had bought the truck and the defendant was delivering it to a buyer in Hazleton. He admitted that the employer’s explanation to the trooper was not truthful. As the Superior Court pointed out, he only knew that because he had just overheard the employer contradict himself.

The Commonwealth charged the defendant with receiving stolen property and two summary traffic offenses. He moved for habeas corpus on the receiving stolen property count. At the hearing, the defense called the employer, who testified that he had bought the truck from a third party a few weeks earlier, produced a bill of sale but not the title, and said that the defendant had nothing to do with the purchase. The trial court granted the motion and quashed the charge. The Commonwealth appealed.

The Superior Court’s Ruling

To establish a prima facie case, the Commonwealth must produce evidence of each element of the offense and probable cause to believe the defendant committed it. Receiving stolen property requires proof that the property was stolen, that the defendant possessed it, and that he knew or had reason to know it was stolen. The Commonwealth may prove guilty knowledge circumstantially, but it may not prove it solely from the fact that the defendant possessed stolen property. 

The Commonwealth argued that the defendant’s admission that the employer had given him a false story showed guilty knowledge. The Superior Court disagreed. The defendant learned that the employer had told two different stories only during the traffic stop, when he overheard the phone call. The Commonwealth did not present any evidence that he knew before the stop that the truck was stolen or that the employer had fed him a false story, and it did not refute the employer’s testimony that the defendant had nothing to do with the purchase. That left possession as the only evidence of knowledge, which is not enough. The Court affirmed.

President Judge Emeritus Stevens concurred to note that the Commonwealth apparently never charged the employer, even though the employer claimed to have bought the truck, could not produce a title, arranged its sale, sent the defendant to move it, and gave the police and the defendant conflicting stories. As he put it, “Appellee was charged, [the employer] was not.”

The Takeaway

The prima facie standard is low, but the Commonwealth still has to put on some evidence of every element. In a receiving stolen property case, that means some evidence of guilty knowledge beyond the fact that the defendant had the property. Tow truck drivers, delivery drivers, and employees who move property for someone else often have no way to know where it came from, and where the Commonwealth cannot show more than possession, a habeas corpus motion should succeed. The defense can also present witnesses at the habeas hearing, as it did here, and where the Commonwealth does not rebut that testimony, the court may consider it.

Facing Criminal Charges or Appealing a Criminal Case in Pennsylvania? We Can Help.

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense

If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals and dismissals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, Violations of the Uniform Firearms Act, and First-Degree Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court, including the successful direct appeal of a first-degree murder conviction and the exoneration of a client who spent 33 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.