What evidence is sufficient to convict a defendant of possession of stolen property under the CALJIC No.15 instruction?

1. Evidence of burglary--First, defendant asserts the instruction was improper because there was insufficient evidence a burglary had in fact occurred. (Cf. People v. Morris (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1, 40, 249 Cal.Rptr. 119, 756 P.2d 843 [improper to give unqualified CALJIC No. 2.15 instruction where evidence relating to defendant's possession of stolen property is unclear].) He contends evidence was lacking regarding his intent to steal at the time he entered the victims' home. (See 459.) We disagree.

Examination of the record indicates there was sufficient circumstantial evidence of a burglary, and of defendant's intent to steal the victims' jewelry when he entered the victims' home. (See People v. Earl (1973) 29 Cal.App.3d 894, 896-898, 105 Cal.Rptr. 831 [circumstantial evidence routinely used to establish intent to steal].) Defendant admitted to the officers he was aware the victims possessed gold jewelry, and also that he was present at their home on or about the date of the murders. Substantial amounts of gold jewelry were missing from the premises. Defendant was later seen

Page 612