(TO BE USED IF DEFENDANT IS FOUND TO BE
IN POSSESSION OF THE STOLEN PROPERTY WITHIN
A SHORT TIME, AFTER THE THEFT, HOURS OR DAYS)
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, if you find that the defendant was in possession of the
Stolen Property) within a reasonable short period of time after the theft, you may infer that the defendant is the thief.
Although possession of stolen property within a limited time from the theft is not in and of itself a crime, since it is possible under our law to possess such goods and remain innocent, such possession within a reasonable short time after the theft, may be found sufficient by you to infer that the possessor is the thief unless the evidence shows to your satisfaction that the property was acquired by (him/her) by legal means.
Unexplained and exclusive possession of stolen property shortly after the theft is ordinarily a circumstance from which you may reasonably draw the inference and find, in light of the surrounding circumstances shown by the evidence in the case, that the possessor is the thief.
However, you are never required to make this inference. it is the exclusive province of the jury to determine whether the facts and circumstances shown by the evidence in this case warrant any inference which the law permits the jury to draw from the possession of stolen property shortly after a theft.
The term, "recently," is a relative term and has no fixed meaning. Whether property may be considered as recently stolen depends upon the nature of the property, and all the facts and circumstances shown by the evidence in the case. The shorter the period between the theft and the possession, the stronger the inference becomes. Conversely, the longer the period of time since the theft the more doubtful becomes the inference which may reasonably be drawn from the unexplained possession.
In considering whether possession of recently stolen property has been satisfactorily explained, you are reminded that in the exercise of (his/her) constitutional rights the accused need not take the witness stand and testify.
Possession may be satisfactorily explained through other circumstances, other evidence, independent of any testimony of the accused. Thus, if you find that the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was in exclusive possession of the property and that the property had been recently stolen, you may find the defendant guilty in the absence of a satisfactory explanation from the evidence as to the circumstance surrounding the possession of
SUPPLEMENTAL CHARGE ON THEFT
Page 2 of 2
the property. You will recall that I have already charged you as to what constitutes possession within the law.
As I have previously mentioned, possession of the stolen property by a person shortly after the theft raises a permissible inference that the possessor is in fact the thief. However, this is a permissible inference only and not a mandatory inference. That is, you may accept or reject such inference after considering all the other evidence in the case. If you accept the inference, you should weigh it in connection with all the other evidence, keeping in mind that the burden of proof is upon the State to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The permissible inference to which I have referred does not shift that burden of proof.
State v. Dancyger, 29 N.J. 76 (1959); State v. Pastore, 133 N.J. Super. 168 (App. Div. 1975); aff'd 69 N.J. 292 (1976).
