P. v. Longacre
Defendant Darrell Ryan Longacre appeals from a conviction for petty theft with a prior theft-related conviction. He now contends the trial court committed prejudicial error by failing in its sua sponte duty to instruct the jury with CALCRIM No. 224 [use of circumstantial evidence to find guilt], because the prosecution substantially relied on circumstantial evidence to establish that he committed petty theft.
Finding no prejudice, we will affirm the judgment.
Comments on P. v. Longacre