Section 376 | CALCRIM (Jury Instructions)

Prieto (2003) 30 Cal.4th 226, 248–249 [133 Cal.Rptr.2d 18, 66 P.3d 1123] [trial
court’s failure to do so was error]; People v. Barker (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1166,
1176 [111 Cal.Rptr.2d 403] [disapproving use of instruction to infer guilt of
murder]; but see People v. Harden (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 848, 856 [2 Cal.Rptr.3d
105] [court did not err in giving modified instruction on possession of recently
stolen property in relation to special circumstance of murder committed during
robbery]; People v. Smithey (1999) 20 Cal.4th 936, 975–978 [86 Cal.Rptr.2d 243,
978 P.2d 1171] [in a case involving both premeditated and felony murder, no error
in instructing on underlying crimes of robbery and burglary]; People v. Mendoza
(2000) 24 Cal.4th 130, 176–177 [99 Cal.Rptr.2d 485, 6 P.3d 150].)
Corroborating Evidence
The bracketed paragraph that begins with “You may also consider” may be used if
the court grants a request for instruction on specific examples of corroboration
supported by the evidence. (See People v. Russell (1932) 120 Cal.App. 622,
625–626 [8 P.2d 209] [list of examples]; see also People v. Peters (1982) 128
Cal.App.3d 75, 85–86 [180 Cal.Rptr. 76] [reference to false or contradictory
statement improper when no such evidence was introduced]). Examples include the
following:
a.
False, contradictory, or inconsistent statements. (People v. Anderson (1989) 210
Cal.App.3d 414, 424 [258 Cal.Rptr. 482]; see, e.g., People v. Peete (1921) 54
Cal.App. 333, 345–346 [202 P. 51] [false statement showing consciousness of
guilt]; People v. Lang (1989) 49 Cal.3d 991, 1024–1025 [264 Cal.Rptr. 386,
782 P.2d 627] [false explanation for possession of property]; People v. Farrell
(1924) 67 Cal.App. 128, 133–134 [227 P. 210] [same].)
b.
The attributes of possession, e.g., the time, place, and manner of possession that
tend to show guilt. (People v. Anderson, supra, 210 Cal.App.3d at p. 424;
People v. Hallman (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 638, 641 [110 Cal.Rptr. 891]; see,
e.g., People v. Gamble (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 446, 453–454 [27 Cal.Rptr.2d
451].)
c.
The opportunity to commit the crime. (People v. Anderson, supra, 210
Cal.App.3d at p. 425; People v. Mosqueira (1970) 12 Cal.App.3d 1173, 1176
[91 Cal.Rptr. 370].)
d.
The defendant’s conduct or statements tending to show guilt, or the failure to
explain possession of the property under circumstances that indicate a
“consciousness of guilt.” (People v. Citrino (1956) 46 Cal.2d 284, 288–289
[294 P.2d 32]; People v. Wells (1960) 187 Cal.App.2d 324, 328–329, 331–332
[9 Cal.Rptr. 384]; People v. Mendoza (2000) 24 Cal.4th 130, 175–176 [99
Cal.Rptr.2d 485, 6 P.3d 150]; People v. Champion (1968) 265 Cal.App.2d 29,
32 [71 Cal.Rptr. 113].)
e.
Flight after arrest. (People v. Scott (1924) 66 Cal.App. 200, 203 [225 P. 767];
People v. Wells, supra, 187 Cal.App.2d at p. 329.)
f.
Assuming a false name and being unable to find the person from whom the
CALCRIM No. 376
EVIDENCE
154

defendant claimed to have received the property. (People v. Cox (19