People v. Avery
115 Cal. Rptr. 2d 403, 27 Cal. 4th 49, 38 P.3d 1 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The intent to commit theft is satisfied by the intent to take property temporarily, but for so extended a period of time as to deprive the owner of a major portion of its value or enjoyment.
Facts:
- In 1983, defendant Avery was charged by indictment in Texas with entering a habitation with the 'intent to commit theft'.
- Avery pleaded no contest in Texas to 'burglary of a habitation with intent to commit theft'.
- The record of the Texas conviction provides no further details about the specific underlying actions or intent of the crime beyond the elements of the offense.
- The Texas Penal Code defines the intent to 'deprive' as withholding property from the owner permanently or for so extended a period of time that a major portion of the value or enjoyment of the property is lost to the owner.
Procedural Posture:
- A California trial court convicted defendant Avery of arson.
- The trial court also found true a sentencing enhancement based on Avery's prior 1983 Texas conviction for burglary, ruling it was a 'serious felony' under California law.
- Avery, as appellant, appealed the judgment.
- The Court of Appeal, an intermediate appellate court, reversed the serious felony finding, concluding that the Texas definition of intent for theft was broader than California's and therefore the conviction did not qualify for the enhancement.
- The People, as petitioner, sought review from the Supreme Court of California, the state's highest court.
- The Supreme Court of California granted the petition for review, limiting the issue to whether the Texas definition of intent for theft satisfies California law.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the intent to take property temporarily, but for so extended a period as to deprive the owner of a major portion of its value or enjoyment, satisfy the intent requirement of theft under California law?
Opinions:
Majority - Chin, J.
Yes, the intent to take property temporarily for an extended period that deprives the owner of a major portion of its value or enjoyment satisfies the California requirement of intent to deprive the owner of the property permanently. California's theft statute is declaratory of the common law, and the common law's requirement of an intent to 'permanently deprive' is a shorthand description, not an inflexible, literal rule. The common law recognizes that takings are larcenous when the nature of the property is such that a temporary taking deprives the owner of its primary economic value (e.g., perishable goods, seasonal items) or when property is abandoned in circumstances making recovery unlikely. Therefore, an intent to deprive an owner of the main value of their property is legally equivalent to the intent to permanently deprive them of that property.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the mens rea (intent) element for theft in California, establishing that the traditional 'intent to permanently deprive' language is not literal. It broadens the scope of intent to include takings that, while technically temporary, effectively destroy the property's value for the owner. This ruling resolves a split among California's appellate courts and makes it easier for prosecutors to use out-of-state convictions for sentencing enhancements where the other state's theft statute has a similar, broader definition of deprivation.
