People v. Ceballos
12 Cal. 3d 470, 526 P.2d 241, 116 Cal. Rptr. 233 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The use of a deadly mechanical device to protect property is not justified when the felony it is intended to prevent is not a forcible and atrocious crime that reasonably creates a fear of death or serious bodily harm.
Facts:
- Don Ceballos lived alone and kept approximately $2,500 worth of property in the garage below his living quarters.
- In March 1970, tools were stolen from Ceballos's home.
- On May 12, 1970, Ceballos discovered pry marks on his garage door and a bent lock.
- The next day, Ceballos mounted a loaded .22 caliber pistol inside the garage, aimed at the doors, and connected it with a wire so that it would discharge if the door was opened.
- The damage had been caused by two teenagers, Stephen (16) and Robert (15), who intended to steal musical equipment.
- On the afternoon of May 15, 1970, while Ceballos was away, the two unarmed teenagers returned to the property.
- Stephen removed the lock with a crowbar and pulled the garage door open.
- When the door opened, the trap gun fired and a bullet struck Stephen in the face.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of California prosecuted Don Ceballos in a state trial court.
- A jury found Ceballos guilty of assault with a deadly weapon.
- The trial court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed Ceballos on probation.
- Ceballos appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of California.
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 a homeowner's use of a deadly trap gun to prevent the burglary of an unoccupied dwelling constitute justifiable assault with a deadly weapon when the burglary itself does not threaten death or serious bodily harm?
Opinions:
Majority - Burke, J.
No. The use of a deadly trap gun to prevent a burglary of an unoccupied dwelling is not justifiable because deadly force is only permissible to prevent a felony that is a forcible and atrocious crime threatening death or serious bodily harm. The court reasoned that deadly mechanical devices are without mercy or discretion and imperil the lives of innocent persons as well as intruders. While the use of deadly force may be justified to prevent certain felonies, the court held that this justification is limited to 'forcible and atrocious' crimes, such as murder, mayhem, rape, and robbery, where human life is, or is presumed to be, in peril. The court concluded that modern burglary, as defined broadly under California Penal Code section 459, is not always a forcible and atrocious crime. In this case, the burglary of an unoccupied garage for the purpose of theft did not threaten death or serious bodily harm, and therefore the use of deadly force was not warranted. The court emphasized that the value of human life is superior to the value of property, and thus deadly force cannot be used solely for the protection of property against a non-violent felony.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant limitation on the right to use deadly force in defense of property in California. The court's decision narrows the justification for using such force by requiring that the underlying felony be a 'forcible and atrocious crime' that threatens death or serious bodily harm, rather than applying to any felony. This ruling effectively discourages the use of deadly mechanical devices for property protection, prioritizing human life over property rights in situations where no person is physically threatened. Future cases involving defense of property will be analyzed based on the character and manner of the intrusion to determine if it reasonably created a fear of great bodily harm.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Ceballos