Can a jury reasonably infer that a defendant was present at the scene of a burglary?

California, United States of America

The following excerpt is from People v. Macclain, E054611 (Cal. App. 2012):

In People v. Snyder (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1222, the court held that the jury could reasonably infer the defendant had been present at the scene of a home invasion burglary, robbery, and murder because shoeprints found at the scene matched

Page 6

the size, pattern, and type of shoes the defendant was wearing immediately after the crime was committed.
In People v. Perryman (1967) 250 Cal.App.2d 813, the defendant was seen driving in a car with the perpetrators about 20 minutes before a burglary, and he was later seen driving around the building where the burglary occurred, indicating an attempt to remain in the vicinity. Although he did not enter the building, the court concluded that substantial evidence supported an inference that he had aided and abetted the burglary. (Id. at p. 820.)

"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Try it today free of charge!

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.

Other Questions

Can a defendant be found guilty of burglary by showing evidence of unlawful entry, flight from the scene and failure to provide a plausible reason for being on the premises? (California, United States of America)

What is the test for an instruction in a criminal case in which a defendant's contention on appeal is that guilt is not a logical, reasonable inference from the mere fact of his fleeing from the scene of a crime? (California, United States of America)

What is the test for determining whether a defendant's reasonableness of their conduct is reasonable? (California, United States of America)

In what circumstances will a jury acquit a defendant who was charged with a burglary but the evidence presented to the jury was ambiguous and ambiguous? (California, United States of America)

When will a court grant a defendant an instruction that cautions the jury that it may not draw an adverse inference from the fact that a defendant has not testified at trial? (California, United States of America)

Is a defendant's failure to testify at the penalty phase an error not to instruct the jury to refrain from drawing any inference from the fact that defendant did not testify at penalty phase? (California, United States of America)

How have courts interpreted the test for whether a defendant who fled from the scene of a burglary has consciousness of guilt? (California, United States of America)

What is the test for evidence that the appellant could reasonably reasonably reasonably expect the appellant to have knowledge of a crime? (California, United States of America)

What is the difference between a reasonable and unreasonable plaintiff and a reasonable plaintiff under a "reasonable implied assumption of risk" approach? (California, United States of America)

What is the test for determining whether a defendant can reasonably have reasonably anticipated the events leading up to the action? (California, United States of America)

Can a jury reasonably infer that a defendant was present at the scene of a burglary?

"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Other Questions

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.

Company

Product

Resources