Is possession of recently stolen property sufficient to overturn a conviction?

"[P]ossession of recently stolen property by itself is not sufficient to support a finding of guilt of any offenseincluding theft-related offensesand, accordingly, there must be other corroborating evidence of the defendant's guilt." (People v. Moore (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1104, 1130.) For theft-related offenses, the corroboration need only be slight. (Id. at pp. 1130-1131.) But even with respect to other offenses, "the corroborating evidence need not be sufficient to prove guilt by itself." (Id. at p. 1131.) " 'When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we

Page 21

review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains substantial evidencethat is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid valuefrom which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.] We presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier of fact reasonably could infer from the evidence. [Citation.] If the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact's findings, reversal of the judgment is not warranted simply because the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding. [Citation.] A reviewing court neither reweighs evidence nor reevaluates a witness's credibility.' " (People v. Covarrubias (2016) 1 Cal.5th 838, 890.)