Del. P.J.I. Crim. No. 4.22

EFFECT OF INFERENCE OF RECENTLY STOLEN PROPERTY

If you find that the State has established, beyond a reasonable doubt, that

the defendant possessed recently stolen property, you may consider this

circumstance in weighing the evidence. You are not required to draw any

conclusion from that circumstance, but you are permitted to infer, from the

defendant’s possession, if you find it to be unexplained or unsatisfactorily

explained, that the defendant is guilty of the offense, provided that such an

inference is warranted by the evidence as a whole.

Even if there is evidence that the defendant possessed recently stolen

property, the State still has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt every

element of an offense. Before you may draw any inference from the defendant’s

possession of recently stolen property, you must find that the State has proved

beyond a reasonable doubt: (a) that the offense charged took place; (b) that the

property specified in the indictment was stolen in the course of the alleged crime;

(c) that the defendant possessed the recently stolen property; (d) that the

defendant’s possession of the property has not been satisfactorily explained by the

evidence; and (e) that the evidence as a whole warrants an inference of guilt.

If you find that the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt all the

elements of the offense, but has not shown that the defendant took part in the

offense except by possessing stolen property, you may, but are not required to,

infer that the defendant was the person (or one of the persons) who stole the

property.

You may only infer that the defendant was the thief (or one of the thieves) if

the defendant’s possession of the stolen property is not satisfactorily explained in

view of all of the evidence. In considering whether the defendant’s possession of

the recently stolen property has been satisfactorily explained, you must bear in

mind that the defendant is not required to take the witness stand or to furnish an

explanation. Possession may be satisfactorily explained by other circumstances

shown by the evidence, independent of any testimony by the defendant.

Even if the defendant’s possession of the recently stolen property is

unexplained, or not explained to your satisfaction, you cannot infer that the

defendant is guilty unless, after consideration of all the evidence, you have no

reasonable doubt about the defendant’s guilt.