Lexplug logoLexplug

People v. Brown

California Court of Appeal
8 Cal. Rptr. 2d 513, 6 Cal.App.4th 1489 (1992)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An entry onto an unenclosed front porch does not constitute an entry into a 'residence' for the purposes of California's 'Home Protection Bill of Rights' (Penal Code § 198.5), as there is no reasonable expectation of protection from unauthorized intrusion in such an area.


Facts:

  • Defendant, a homeowner, entered into a contract with Jason Neal, a bricklayer, for landscaping work to be completed by a specific deadline.
  • On April 14, dissatisfied with Neal's progress, defendant told Neal to gather his tools and leave the property without finishing the job.
  • An argument ensued, after which defendant went inside his house.
  • Angry at being fired, Neal took a hammer and began knocking off the top layer of bricks he had laid in a flower bed near the front of the house.
  • Defendant came to the front screen door and told Neal to stop.
  • According to defendant's testimony, Neal then turned, advanced toward the house, and stepped onto the front porch with the hammer raised to shoulder-height in a threatening manner.
  • Defendant, standing inside the doorway of his home, shot Neal in the leg through the screen door.

Procedural Posture:

  • The State prosecuted defendant in a California superior court (trial court).
  • During the trial, the defendant requested a jury instruction based on Penal Code § 198.5, the 'Home Protection Bill of Rights.'
  • The trial court refused to give the requested instruction, finding no evidence of an 'entry' into a 'residence.'
  • A jury convicted defendant of assault with a deadly weapon and personal use of a firearm.
  • Defendant (as appellant) appealed the conviction to the California Court of Appeal, arguing the trial court erred by refusing the jury instruction.

Locked

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 an unlawful and forcible entry onto an unenclosed front porch constitute an entry into a 'residence' under California's 'Home Protection Bill of Rights' (§ 198.5), thereby entitling a resident to a jury instruction creating a rebuttable presumption of reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury?


Opinions:

Majority - Davis, J.

No. An entry onto an unenclosed front porch does not constitute an entry into a 'residence' for the purposes of invoking the presumption in § 198.5. The court determined the scope of 'residence' by applying the 'reasonable expectation' test from burglary case law, specifically People v. Nible. This test asks whether the nature of a structure's composition is such that a reasonable person would expect protection from unauthorized intrusions. The court concluded that an unenclosed front porch, which is open to public access for visitors, delivery people, and salespeople, is not an area where a resident has a reasonable expectation of privacy or protection. Social convention dictates that such an area is a public-facing access point to the home, not part of the private residence itself. Therefore, defendant was not entitled to the § 198.5 instruction, but was properly given standard self-defense instructions, which adequately cover situations of perceived threat in such areas.


Concurring - Blease, Acting P. J.

No. The majority's reliance on the 'reasonable expectation' test from burglary law is misplaced; the controlling factor is the statute's requirement of a 'forcible entry.' Section 198.5 only applies when a residence has been 'unlawfully and forcibly' entered. The ordinary meaning of 'forcible entry' involves breaking open doors, windows, or other parts of a house, or using violence or terror to enter. An open, unenclosed front porch, by its nature, cannot be 'forcibly entered' in this manner because there are no barriers to break. Therefore, the statute is inapplicable on its face, and there is no need to analyze whether the porch constitutes a 'residence.'



Analysis:

This decision clarifies the spatial limits of the powerful presumption in California's 'Home Protection Bill of Rights' (§ 198.5), also known as the castle doctrine. By applying the 'reasonable expectation' test, the court establishes that the doctrine's strongest protections do not extend to the home's curtilage where there is no objective expectation of privacy from public intrusion, such as an unenclosed porch. This precedent requires future courts to distinguish between the private interior of a home and semi-public access points when applying § 198.5. Consequently, homeowners who use deadly force in such areas cannot rely on the statutory presumption of fear and must instead meet the standard requirements to prove self-defense.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: People v. Brown (1992)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"