Return to CALJIC Part 14-17 – Contents
F 14.66a
Receiving Stolen Property With Innocent Intent:
Burden Of Proof As To Affirmative Defense
*Modify the second paragraph of CJ 14.66 as follows [deleted language is between << >>]:
There is no general criminal intent if a defendant buys or receives [stolen] [or] [extorted] property, knowing it to be [stolen] [extorted], with the intent to [return the property to its owner] [or] [deliver it to law enforcement officers]. The presence of an innocent intent is a defense to the charge of buying or receiving [stolen] [or] [extorted] property<<, and the burden of raising a reasonable doubt as to the existence of criminal intent is upon the defendant>>.
If, after considering all the circumstances including any evidence of innocent intent, any juror has a reasonable doubt that the defendant formed the required criminal intent, you must find the defendant not guilty.
Points and Authorities
A defendant charged with receiving stolen property can rely on the affirmative defense that he intended to return the stolen property at the time that he obtained possession of it. (People v. Dishman (1982) 128 CA3d 717, 721.) As is true of all affirmative defenses relating to the negation of an element of the offense, the defendant has the burden to present substantial evidence in support of the defense. (See People v. Figueroa (1986) 41 C3d 714, 721.) If such evidence is presented, the defendant is entitled to an acquittal unless there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense has not been established. (Ibid.)
The defect in CJ 14.66 is that it erroneously advises the jury that the defendant has the “burden of raising a reasonable doubt” concerning the innocent intent defense. Defendant’s burden consists solely of “producing evidence” to support the defense. (See FORECITE PG III(D).)
[See Brief Bank # B-955 for briefing on this issue.]
(See FORECITE F 1.00 n9; see also FORECITE F 6.20b.)
