CA · jury_instructions
CALCRIM No. 376
Possession of Recently Stolen Property as Evidence of a
Crime
If you conclude that the defendant knew (he/she) possessed property and
you conclude that the property had in fact been recently (stolen/
extorted), you may not convict the defendant of <insert
crime> based on those facts alone. However, if you also find that
supporting evidence tends to prove (his/her) guilt, then you may
conclude that the evidence is sufficient to prove (he/she) committed
<insert crime>.
The supporting evidence need only be slight and need not be enough by
itself to prove guilt. Y ou may consider how, where, and when the
defendant possessed the property, along with any other relevant
circumstances tending to prove (his/her) guilt of <insert
crime>.
[Y ou may also consider whether <insert other appropriate
factors for consideration>.]
Remember that you may not convict the defendant of any crime unless
you are convinced that each fact essential to the conclusion that the
defendant is guilty of that crime has been proved beyond a reasonable
doubt.
New January 2006, September 2019
Provenance
- Source
- courts.ca.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-08-20
- Edition
- calcrim-2022
- Content hash
b106b007fb6614008c8e63d28f66b26fe4c8e6cb2ee324628a4787b66bbfa3ae
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.