Opinion ID: 2594735
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jury Instruction on Conscious Possession of Stolen Property

Text: Defendant contends the trial court improperly instructed the jury on his possession of property taken in the burglaries and that the error requires reversal of the burglary convictions as a violation of state law. The error, if any, was harmless. The trial court gave the jury the 1984 revision of CALJIC No. 2.15, the standard instruction on possession of stolen property. The first paragraph of the instruction explained to the jury that conscious possession of recently stolen property was not by itself sufficient to permit an inference that defendant was guilty of robbery, burglary, or kidnapping to commit robbery. It stated that corroborating evidence of guilt was necessary, but that the corroboration need only be slight and did not by itself have to be sufficient to warrant an inference of guilt. The second paragraph of CALJIC No. 2.15 (1984 rev.) listed the types of corroborating evidence the jury may consider: (1) the attributes of possessiontime, place and manner; (2) that the defendant had the opportunity to commit the crime charged; (3) the defendant's conduct; (4) his false or contradictory statements, if any; (5) other statements he may have made with reference to the property; (6) a false account of how he acquired possession of the stolen property; and (7) any other evidence which tends to connect the defendant with the crime charged. Defendant concedes he made statements with reference to the property, as listed in category (5), but he asserts there was no evidence on the other categories and therefore they should not have been mentioned in the instruction. Even if we assume error, defendant suffered no prejudice. The instruction in general was favorable to defendant. It told the jury that possession of stolen property alone was insufficient to permit an inference that defendant was guilty of burglary. ( People v. Johnson (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1, 37, 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 593, 859 P.2d 673.) The second paragraph of the instruction said that the jury may consider  the categories listed, and thus did not require the jury to take them into account. Also, the trial court instructed the jury on the definition of burglary. (CALJIC No. 14.50 (1981 rev.).) Moreover, the court told the jury to disregard any instruction which applies to a state of facts which you determine does not exist. (CALJIC No. 17.31.) As we have explained, here there was sufficient corroborating evidence of defendant's commission of robbery and kidnapping for purposes of robbery. (See People v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 619, 676-677, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 782, 937 P.2d 213.) It is not reasonably probable a result more favorable to the defendant would have been reached in the absence of the error, if any. ( People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836, 299 P.2d 243; People v. Peters (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 75, 86, 180 Cal.Rptr. 76.)