Can a jury infer that a defendant was in conscious possession of the stolen property when arrested in the hallway of a hotel?

^6. Although the People did not argue this theory of the case, defendant's presence at the hotel supports an inference that she had a possessory interest in the jewelry and, when arrested in the hallway, had joint possession of it. When a defendant is in conscious possession of recently stolen property, a jury may infer that she is the person who stole the property as long as there is slight corroborating evidence which tends to link the defendant to the theft. (People v. Gamble (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 446, 452-453.) In general, any evidence tending to connect the defendant to the crime is corroborating evidence. (Id. at p. 452, fn. 1.) Evidence showing the defendant had an opportunity to commit the theft is corroborating evidence (ibid.), as is evidence showing the defendant's participation in the sale of the stolen property. (People v. Sorrentino (1956) 146 Cal.App.2d 149, 160.) Here, defendant was with the other suspects during the preparation for the robbery and was nearby when the robbery occurred. Several days later, she rejoined the suspects to attempt to sell the stolen jewelry. This is sufficient corroborating evidence linking defendant to the robbery.