What is the difference between cautionary instruction regarding a defendant's statements and the rule that possession of recently stolen property is insufficient to establish guilt?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Diaz, 185 Cal.Rptr.3d 431, 345 P.3d 62, 60 Cal.4th 1176 (Cal. 2015):
The cautionary instruction regarding a defendant's statements stands in contrast to instructions that convey a legal principle with which jurors would be unfamiliar in the absence of instruction from the court. This distinction is illustrated by People v. Najera (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1132, 77 Cal.Rptr.3d 605, 184 P.3d 732, in which we held that the trial court had no duty to instruct the jury on its own motion that possession of recently stolen property is insufficient by itself to establish guilt of theft-related offenses. We compared the instruction at issue with instructions concerning the corpus delicti rule and the requirement that the testimony of an accomplice be corroborated. Those instructions reflected legal rules that certain types of evidence are insufficient, alone, to establish guiltrules of which the jurors would not be aware without instruction. (Id. at pp. 11361137, 77 Cal.Rptr.3d 605, 184 P.3d 732.) In contrast, the rule that possession of stolen property is insufficient in itself to establish
[60 Cal.4th 1192]
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
