Is possession of stolen property sufficient corroborative evidence to set aside the judgment of the trial court?

"Before the judgment of the trial court can be set aside for the insufficiency of the evidence, it must clearly appear that on no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support the verdict of the jury." (People v. Hicks (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 423, 429.)

Although the jury may consider the circumstance that a defendant possessed stolen property to connect him or her to the burglary, "mere possession of stolen property is not sufficient to connect a defendant with the perpetration of the burglary in which the property was taken" without "other evidence." (People v. Russell (1932) 120 Cal.App. 622, 625.) Circumstances that have been held sufficient corroborative evidence when coupled with possession include (a) flight; (b) false statements showing consciousness of guilt; (c) false statements as to how the property came into defendant's possession; (d) assuming a false name and an inability to find the person from whom defendant claimed to have received the property; (e) sale of the property under a false name and at an inadequate price; (f) sale of the property with marks of identity removed and failure to account for its possession; (g) giving false testimony; and (h) an effort to throw away the stolen property. (Ibid.) None of these circumstances are present in this case.