Where a criminal defendant is charged with robbery (and thus death-eligible robbery-murder) and the jury must decide whether the prosecution proved robbery, simple theft, or only knowing possession of stolen property, does the Due Process requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt permit the jury to be instructed that, if the defendant possessed recently stolen property and there was other 'slight' corroboration of the robbery charge, it could find him guilty of robbery? Or does the instruction unconstitutionally relieve the jury of finding contested elements of the greater offense, such as whether any theft was a goal of an attack or an opportunistic taking after the victim was assaulted for other reasons?

QUESTION PRESENTED CAPITAL CASE Where a criminal defendant is charged with robbery (and thus death-eligible robbery-murder) and the jury must decide whether the prosecution proved robbery, simple theft, or only knowing possession of stolen property, does the Due Process requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt permit the jury to be instructed that, if the defendant possessed recently stolen property and there was other “slight” corroboration of the robbery charge, it could find him guilty of robbery? Or does the instruction unconstitutionally relieve the jury of finding contested elements of the greater offense, such as whether any theft was a goal of an attack or an opportunistic taking after the victim was assaulted for other reasons? i