While we agree that such language should have been omitted from the instruction, we conclude the error was harmless. The remaining instructions clearly informed the jury that the defendant was charged with possession of a stolen vehicle only and gave only the elements of that crime. Thus, defendant was not harmed by the reference to stealing. Finally, defendant argues that the trial court erred in providing the instruction to the jury because the presumption established in Utah Code Ann. Specifically, defendant claims the statutory presumption is only a tool the trial court uses to determine if there is sufficient evidence to go to the jury or to support a verdict.
Defendant is incorrect.
Thus, such instructions, if given properly, are permissible. 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 .