Skip to content
Name: People v. Harden
Case #: D040210
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 07/21/2003
Subsequent History: None

The trial court did not err in giving a modified version of CALJIC No. 2.15 (conscious possession of recently stolen property requires slight corroborating evidence before inference of guilt may be drawn) that applied not only to the crimes of burglary and robbery, but also to the special circumstance allegation that the murder was committed during a robbery and burglary. The trial court did not err in omitting language (instructing that the burglary or robbery must not be merely incidental to the murder) from modified CALJIC No. 8.81.17, where the evidence did not support that conclusion as a reasonable inference. Here, the defendant did not know the occupant of the home, but gained entry on a pretext, stole jewelry and a bank card, which she immediately pawned and tried to access to obtain cash. Finally, omission of the language did not violate the Eight Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.