Riccio

A jury convicted appellant of receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a); statutory references, unless otherwise noted, are to the Penal Code) and found true an “on bail” allegation (§ 12022.1). He was sentenced to a high, three-year prison term and ordered to pay the victim $165,000 restitution.

Appellant contends the trial court violated the corpus delicti rule by admitting his extrajudicial statements and erred in imposing $165,000 restitution. We affirm.

Factual Background

There being no insufficiency of evidence claim, the facts may be stated briefly. Our perspective favors the judgment. (People v. Barnes (1986) 42 Cal.3d 284, 303-304 [ 228 Cal.Rptr. 228 , 721 P.2d 110 ].)

The victim, Arthur Smith, was a second generation numismatist. In 1976 he bought his father’s Miami business, changed the name to Smith & Daughter, and specialized in rare Latin American coins. He was among the country’s five major dealers in this coin specialty.

In early February 1993 Mr. Smith attended a coin show at the Long Beach Convention Center where he rented a booth and displayed more than 1,200 Latin American coins worth approximately $500,000. Collectively, the coins…