Opinion ID: 1157036
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Instruction on Recent Possession

Text: Since a retrial of this case is necessary, we address the defendant's claim of error in connection with the instruction on possession of recently stolen property. The challenged instruction stated as follows: The exclusive, unexplained possession of stolen property recently after a burglary serves to create an inference or incriminating circumstances that the Defendant stole such property and that such evidence, if established beyond a reasonable doubt, is sufficient in and of itself to justify a verdict of guilty in the absence of an explanation derived from the evidence in the case raising a reasonable doubt to his guilt. In Wells v. People, 197 Colo. 350, 356, 592 P.2d 1321, 1326 (1979), which was decided after the trial of this case, we stated: ... [A]lthough the instruction uses the word `inference,' read as a whole it almost compels a verdict of guilt if the jury finds the possession to be exclusive, recent and unexplained. It does not alert the jury that it may accept or reject the inference based on all the surrounding circumstances. Another failure in the challenged instruction is the direction that the inference from the exclusive, unexplained possession of the property taken in the robbery `can be sufficient in and of itself to justify a verdict of Guilty for the charge of robbery   .' In effect, therefore, the instruction might be understood to relieve the state of its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt all the elements of robbery. Because of these and other deficiencies in the instruction, we prospectively prohibited its use and proposed a suitable alternative. If the trial court, on retrial of this case, is satisfied that there is evidentiary support for an instruction on recent possession, it should formulate such instruction in accordance with the recommended instruction in Wells. The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded to the district court for a new trial in accordance with the views herein expressed. HODGES, C.J., and ROVIRA, J., dissent. LEE, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.