When is a defendant required to prove possession of stolen property to convict him of the crime of receiving stolen property?

Defendant requested a jury instruction based upon People v. Azbill, 134 Cal.App. 616, 25 P.2d 1010--"The mere possession of stolen property, unexplained by the person having possession, is not sufficient to justify a conviction of the crime of receiving stolen property," and one based on People v. Myles, 50 Cal.App.3d 423, 123 Cal.Rptr. 348--"Possession of stolen property is not shown by mere access or proximity to stolen goods; dominion and control must be shown." They were refused, but the trial court did incorporate a substantial portion of the Azbill instruction into CALJIC No. 14.65 by adding thereto, "Mere possession of stolen goods itself is not sufficient in itself to establish guilt." Asked by the court if, so modified, it was an acceptable substitute, defense counsel replied "I think that covers that [Azbill ] instruction."

The trial court refused to give the two requested instructions on the ground they were adequately covered in CALJIC Nos. 14.65 and 1.24. If they were, there was no error for the court is not required to give repetitious instructions. (People v. Duckett, 162 Cal.App.3d 1115, 1127, 209 Cal.Rptr. 96.)