Court Opinion

ID: 9527099
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:27:26.491378+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:33.464926
License: Public Domain

M. F. Cavanagh, P. J.
(concurring). I agree that the charge given, when read in its entirety, adequately advised this jury. I concur separately to voice my dissatisfaction with the wording of CJI 26:1:04, upon which the charge here given was based. I refer specifically to the sentence, "These facts, if not explained, are ordinarily circumstances from which you may reasonably infer that the defendant had knowledge that the property was stolen”. I find that this instruction is confusing. It comes dangerously close to indicating that knowledge can be inferred from mere possession. It can also be read as shifting the burden of proof and as impinging upon defendant’s right to remain silent.