In what circumstances will the court reverse its instruction that a defendant was in conscious possession of recently stolen property?

In People v. Prieto (2003) 30 Cal.4th 226, the trial court instructed the jury that if it found "'that a defendant was in conscious possession of recently stolen property, the fact of such possession is not by itself sufficient to permit an inference that the defendant ... is guilty of the crimes charged.'" (Id. at p. 248.) The problem with this instruction was that it was designed for cases where possession of stolen property was charged along with robbery, burglary, theft, or receiving stolen property but was used in a case where the defendant was charged with rape and murder. (Ibid.) Thus, the instruction wrongly hinted that possessing stolen property could inform whether one was a rapist and murderer. (Id. at p. 249.) The defendant argued this error mandated reversal because it lowered the prosecution's burden of proof. This argument was rejected because the

Page 108