Whether proof that the defendant possessed recently stolen property—any stolen property, as far as the instruction is concerned, even if the defendant does not know it is stolen—plus 'slight' supporting evidence, is sufficient to meet the requirement that the State prove beyond a reasonable doubt 'the existence of every element of the offense.

QUESTION PRESENTED Petitioner snatched a patron’s purse at a McDonald’s restaurant, and a jury convicted her of robbery and receiving stolen property (the getaway pickup truck driven by her co-defendant turned out to be stolen). She also possessed stolen checks and identity information of other persons. The jury was instructed that facts “may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence or by a combination of both.” Then the court gave a pattern jury instruction which permitted the jury to draw an extraordinary conclusion from a particular type of circumstantial evidence: If the defendant knowingly possessed recently stolen property, said the instruction, you may not convict the defendant of robbery or receiving stolen property based on those facts alone, but “if you also find that supporting evidence tends to prove her guilt, then you may conclude that the evidence is sufficient to prove she committed Second Degree Robbery . . . or Receiving Stolen Property—Motor Vehicle.” [Italics added.] The instruction continued: “The supporting evidence need only be slight and need not be enough by itself to prove guilt.” Shortly after giving that instruction, the court correctly instructed the jury on the elements of robbery—the taking of property from another, against her will, by the use of force or fear, with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property—and on the elements of receiving stolen property— taking possession or control of property the defendant knows is stolen. The question presented is whether proof that the defendant possessed recently stolen property—any stolen property, as far as the instruction is concerned, even if the defendant does not know it is stolen—plus “slight” supporting evidence, is sufficient to meet the requirement that the State prove beyond a reasonable doubt “the existence of every element of the offense.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 316 (1979). i