Court Opinion

ID: 9744526
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 22:05:19.901158+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:49.839847
License: Public Domain

FRAMPTON, J. pro tem.*
I dissent. In my opinion the criticized instruction to the effect that possession of stolen property soon after it was taken, in the absence of a showing by a defendant that such possession was honestly acquired, is a circumstance tending to show guilt, does not compel a defendant to testify against himself as proscribed by article I, section 13 of the California Constitution, and it does not violate Amendment Five to the United States Constitution. It is my opinion that the question was properly determined adversely to the appellant’s contention herein in People v. De Leon, 236 Cal.App.2d 530, 533-534 [46 Cal.Rptr. 241].
I would afSrm the judgment.
Respondent’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied August 8, 1968. Peters, J., Mosk, J., and Burke, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.

Retired judge of the superior court sitting under assignment by the Chairman of the Judicial Council,