How have courts interpreted Calcim No. 376 of the Criminal Code for the purpose of instructing a jury not to infer guilt from a defendant's conscious possession of recently stolen goods?

instruction which inures to a criminal defendant's benefit by warning the jury not to infer guilt merely from a defendant's conscious possession of recently stolen goods, without at least some corroborating evidence tending to show the defendant's guilt." (People v. Barker (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1166, 1174.) Otherwise, the jury's natural inclination might be to convict a defendant solely on the highly incriminating fact that he is in possession of the stolen goods.

Finally, "CALCRIM No. 376 makes it quite apparent that the 'slight' supporting evidence is not to be considered in isolation, but together with all of the other evidence for purposes of determining whether there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed robbery. [Citation.] The instruction expressly requires the jury to be 'convinced that each fact essential to the conclusion that the defendant is guilty of that crime has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.' (CALCRIM No. 376.) Thus, CALCRIM No. 376 does nothing to diminish the prosecution's burden of proof." (People v. Lopez (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 698, 711.)