Kot

Convicted of receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, §496), defendant asserts in support of his appeal from the judgment and the order denying a new trial (1) insufficiency of the evidence and (2) error in the refusal of certain instructions requested by defendant.

(1) The claim of insufficiency of the evidence is predicated upon the asserted lack of evidence of the circumstances under which defendant obtained the stolen property; i.e., whether he obtained it by theft from the owner or from some other person after the theft had been accomplished. He cites three eases in support of this thesis.

In People v. Jacobs, 73 Cal.App. 334 [ 238 P. 770 ] (hearing by Supreme Court denied) the court was considering what inferences might be drawn from the fact that stolen property is found in the possession of a person immediately or soon after the property was stolen, and reviewed the case law of other states. It observed that in some states such facts would warrant an inference of guilt of larceny but not of receiving stolen goods; in some, that such possession when attended by suspicious circumstances will justify a conviction of receiving stolen property; and in others that such possession…