Opinion ID: 2613228
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence of possession of stolen jewelry

Text: (15) As previously noted, under People v. Morris, supra, 46 Cal.3d at page 40, an unqualified instruction based on CALJIC No. 2.15 should not be given if the defendant's possession of the stolen property is unclear or in dispute. (See also United States v. Bamberger (3d Cir.1972) 456 F.2d 1119, 1134.) Defendant asserts that the prosecution introduced no evidence establishing that he possessed any of the victims' jewelry. We disagree. Several witnesses described in detail various items of the victims' missing jewelry, including a large coin-type medallion worn by victim Holmes. Witness Constance Smith testified that this medallion could have been the same one she saw defendant wearing following the murders. As previously noted, defendant was seen wearing gold rings, bracelets and necklaces, and was also seen pawning some gold jewelry. He told Roshaun Fuller that he assaulted and robbed both victims after ransacking their rooms and taking their jewelry. We conclude the record contains sufficient evidence of possession of stolen property to justify the instruction.