Can a defendant be found guilty on the grounds that he knew that the guns he received were stolen?

guns did not create a reasonable inference that he additionally knew that the guns were stolen. Finally, the People assert that there is sufficient evidence of this knowledge where the defendant does not explain his possession, citing People v. Perez (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 795, 799 [disapproved on other grounds in People v Allen (1999) 21 Cal.4th 846, 863]. In Perez, the appellate court said, "[T]he law is . . . clear that possession of stolen property, accompanied by no explanation, or an unsatisfactory explanation, or by suspicious circumstances, will justify an inference that the goods were received with knowledge that they had been stolen. Only slight corroboration is necessary to turn the inference into a verdict supported by substantial evidence. [Citation.] . . . [The defendant] told [his nephew] that he knew the [stolen items] were stolen. . . . [H]e was present at his place of residence with goods which he admitted knowing were stolen. These factors constitute adequate corroboration that the good were 'received' by [the defendant] with knowledge that they had been stolen." (Id. at p. 799, italics added.) Here, in contrast, while defendant offered no explanation for his possession of the guns, there was no corroboration, as there was in Perez, in the form of an admission by defendant that he knew the guns had been stolen. As we have already stated, defendant's conduct, in attempting to distance himself from the guns, under the circumstances here, did not constitute corroboration tending to prove that defendant knew the guns were stolen. Neither did the testimony of the mother of defendant's child that she had never seen defendant in possession of the guns, therefore, the People assert defendant must have been hiding the guns from her because he knew they were stolen. It was obvious

Page 14