Is there any error in the CALCRIM No. 376.2 instruction on the crime of robbery?

Moreover, any claimed error was harmless. The language of the instruction warning the jury that mere possession of stolen property alone is insufficient to permit an inference of guilt has been deemed favorable to defendants generally. (See People v.

Page 15

Mendoza (2000) 24 Cal.4th 130, 176 (Mendoza) [discussing same language in CALJIC No. 2.15]; accord, People v. Barker (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1166, 1174.) In reading the jury instructions as a whole, including the instruction on the crime of robbery, it is not reasonably probable the jury was confused as to the required elements of robbery or the requisite burden of proof. Given the substantial evidence in the record supporting defendant's guilt and the totality of the instructions provided to the jury, it is not reasonably probable defendant would have obtained a more favorable result in the absence of CALCRIM No. 376. (Mendoza, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 177.)