Case Name: THE PEOPLE v. AH SING
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1881-07
Citations: 59 Cal. 400
Docket Number: No. 10,600
Parties: THE PEOPLE v. AH SING.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 59
Pages: 400–401

Head Matter:
[No. 10,600.
In Bank.]
THE PEOPLE v. AH SING.
JUBT—INSTBUCTIONS AS TO EFFECT OF EVIDENCE—CONSTITUTIONAL IiAW.
. Upon the trial of an information for burglary, the court instructed the jury that possession of stolen property unexplained at a time immediately following the time when the property was stolen, supported by other circumstances and other evidence tending to show guilt, was a strong circumstance in the case,
Held: This was error. Whether the possession was strong evidence, or only slight evidence tending to show guilt, was a matter for the jury to pass upon, and not a question for the Court to determine.
Appeal from a judgment of conviction, and from an order denying a new trial, in the Superior Court of the County of Alameda. Green, J.
The portion of the charge of the Court referred to in the opinion was as follows: “ Possession of stolen property, standing alone and unsupported by other circumstances and evidence in the case tending to show guilt, is insufficient to convict; but possession of stolen property, unexplained, at a time immediately following the time when the property was stolen, supported by other circumstances and other evidence in the case tending to show guilt, is a strong circumstance tending to show guilt.”
George W. Lewis, for Appellant.
In charging the jury, the Court below transcended its constitutional prerogative, and invaded and usurped the exclusive prerogative of the jury. (People v. Wong Ah Ngow, 54 Cal. 151; People v. Carrillo, id. 63; People v. Mitchell, 55 id. 237.)
No brief on file for Respondent.

Opinion:
The Court:
The defendant was proceeded against by information, and convicted of the crime of burglary; and on the trial the Court below instructed the jury that the possession of stolen property, supported by other circumstances and other evidence tending to show guilt, is a strong circumstance in the case. This was error. Whether the possession was strong evidence, or only slight evidence tending to show guilt, was a matter for the jury to pass upon, and not a question for the Court to determine. -
Judgment and order reversed.