Is unexplained possession of property sufficient to sustain a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Wilkins, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 393, 119 Cal.Rptr.3d 691, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 441 (Cal. App. 2011):
[13] An inference of guilt may be drawn from unexplained possession of stolen property. ( Barnes v. United States (1973) 412 U.S. 837, 843, 93 S.Ct. 2357, 37 L.Ed.2d 380.) "Possession of recently stolen property is so incriminating that to warrant conviction there need only be, in addition to possession, slight corroboration in the form of statements or conduct of the defendant tending to show his guilt. [Citations.]" ( People v. McFarland (1962) 58 Cal.2d 748, 754, 26 Cal.Rptr. 473, 376 P.2d 449.) "As long as the corroborating evidence together with the conscious possession could naturally and reasonably support an inference of guilt, and that inference is sufficient to sustain a verdict beyond a reasonable doubt, we discern
[119 Cal.Rptr.3d 704]
nothing that lessens the prosecution's burden of proof or implicates a defendant's right to due process." ( People v. Williams (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1157, 1173, 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 727.)[119 Cal.Rptr.3d 704]
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
