Is a defendant's failure to honestly explain possession a corroborative circumstance to sustain a burglary conviction?

In People v. Citrino, supra, 46 Cal.2d 284, 289, 294 P.2d 32, there was sufficient corroborative evidence (including false statements and a suspect alibi) other than a mere failure to honestly explain possession which could sustain the burglary convictions.

However, in People v. Wells (1960) 187 Cal.App.2d 324, 19 Cal.Rptr. 384 the court relied in part on defendant's postarrest silence to sustain a burglary conviction. There, defendant and two others were stopped by police officers for a traffic violation less than one hour after a burglary. One officer saw some articles in the back seat covered with a navy blanket, including a sander bearing the word "Skill." The officer became suspicious and ran a check and discovered that there had been a burglary. By this time defendant's cohorts had fled and the officer searched the car and found the stolen property. The court held that the circumstances of the two "conspirators" fleeing from which an inference of guilty knowledge could be imputed to defendant and defendant's failure to explain his possession was sufficient evidence to sustain the burglary conviction. (Id., at pp. 331-332, 9 Cal.Rptr. 384.).

However, for the reasons stated in this opinion, we do not follow People v. Wells, supra, to the extent that it may rely on a defendant's failure to explain possession as a corroborative circumstance to sustain a burglary conviction.