In a Lehigh County theft case, it is typical that a person is also charged with "receiving stolen property". Such a charge is not easily known or apparent on its face. The charge is defined under 18 Pa.C.S. § 3925, which states that a person is guilty of theft if he intentionally receives, retains, or disposes of movable property of another knowing that it has been stolen, or believing that it has probably been stolen, unless the property is received, retained, or disposed with intent to restore it to the owner. "Receiving" means acquiring possession, control or title, or lending on the security of the property. So, it makes some sense that it is a companion charge to a theft, burglary, or robbery case.
As such, the offense of receiving stolen property, which is traditionally treated as a distinct offense, is part of the comprehensive "theft" offense because analytically the receiver does precisely what is forbidden by 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3921, namely, that a person exercises unauthorized control over property of another with the purpose of applying or disposing of it permanently for the benefit of himself or another not entitled. Again, this is normally a "companion" offense and should be discussed with a Lehigh County criminal lawyer.
On case in particular is Commonwealth v. Shaffer, 279 Pa. Super. 18, 20 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1980). In this case, a truck driver with a load of beef became broken down. Instead of waiting for a repair and continuing on to his intended destination, the driver/defendant went to his neighborhood and sold the beef to friends/family for a much reduced price that its fair market value. He was arrested and charged with theft by unlawful taking or disposition, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3921 (1973), and receiving stolen property, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3925 (1973). As you can guess, the defendant was not given permission to sell the beef on the side of the road. The jury acquitted appellant of theft by unlawful taking or disposition but convicted him of receiving stolen property.The court affirmed the conviction, holding that consistency in the jury's verdicts was unnecessary because there was sufficient evidence to support the verdicts the jury returned, including substantial evidence as to the fact that defendant knew the beef was stolen when he disposed of it.