California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Salazar, C056413 (Cal. App. 10/1/2008), C056413 (Cal. App. 2008):
Nevertheless, we need not split hairs, or even tear out our own hair, in determining whether the element of defendant's knowledge rests substantially on circumstantial evidence. As our high court observed in a similar situation in People v. Rodrigues (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1060, "[b]ecause the trial court delivered the more inclusive instruction under CALJIC No. 2.01 [CALCRIM No. 224's substantively same predecessor], its refusal to additionally instruct with CALJIC No. 2.02 [CALCRIM No. 225's substantively same predecessor] clearly was not prejudicial error." (Id. at p. 1142.)
4. Simple Possession Convictions as Improper Multiple Convictions
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.