We conclude the challenged jury instruction was properly submitted to the jury and did not shift the burden of proof concerning the mens rea requirement of the crime from the State to defendant. Accordingly, we uphold defendant's conviction for possession of a stolen motor vehicle. This instruction is based in part on Utah Code Ann. 3 Defendant attempts to distinguish Perez , claiming that this case should properly be analyzed under his reading of Graves . Defendant claims that under Graves the presumption contained in the jury instruction at issue cannot be utilized if the defendant offers an explanation for his possession.
Defendant reads too much into Graves .
Graves simply stated that the inference was allowable when no explanation was given. Graves made no comment concerning the consequence of explanations given by a defendant. This occurs twice. Without expressing any opinion as to whether the prosecutor's comments were proper, we conclude that, even if they were improper, they were not so substantial as to create a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable verdict.