P. v. Evans
Defendant urges us to reverse his robbery conviction because the trial court instructed the jury in the language of CALCRIM No. 376 that only slight corroboration is necessary when the accused is found in possession of recently stolen property. The instruction, in defendants view, violates California case law, reduces the prosecutions burden of proof, and is tantamount to a directed verdict. Court disagree and affirm the judgment.
Comments on P. v. Evans