People v. DeRouen
38 Cal.App.4th 86, 44 Cal. Rptr. 2d 842, 95 Daily Journal DAR 12216 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A vacation or second home that is used sporadically is considered an 'inhabited dwelling' for the purposes of a first-degree burglary conviction, as long as the owner intends to continue using it as sleeping quarters in the future.
Facts:
- On March 4, 1993, William Henry DeRouen burglarized several properties in Calaveras County.
- The properties included vacation homes owned by Carl Johnston and Howard Edwards, and trailers owned by Dale Lenz.
- The owners used these properties as second or vacation homes, meaning they resided there only sporadically.
- During the burglaries, numerous personal and sentimental items were stolen, including an antique piano, a motorcycle, a rifle, and a hope chest.
- Another homeowner, Carl Johnston, interrupted the burglary of a neighbor's property and apprehended one of the intruders.
- Police found evidence linking DeRouen to the crimes, including a shoe print matching his shoe on a table inside Edwards's home and stolen property inside DeRouen's car.
Procedural Posture:
- William Henry DeRouen was charged in a California trial court with multiple counts of burglary and receiving stolen property.
- Following a trial, a jury found DeRouen guilty on all counts, including four counts of first-degree burglary.
- The trial court entered a judgment of conviction and sentenced DeRouen to state prison.
- DeRouen, as appellant, filed an appeal of his conviction to the California Court of Appeal, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence.
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 vacation home that is used only sporadically by its owners qualify as an 'inhabited dwelling' under California Penal Code sections 459 and 460 for the purpose of a first-degree burglary conviction?
Opinions:
Majority - Raye, J.
Yes, a vacation home used sporadically qualifies as an 'inhabited dwelling' for first-degree burglary. The court reasoned that the primary purpose of the first-degree burglary statute is to protect the safety of occupants from the potential for violence inherent in a residential intrusion. This danger exists whether a dwelling is a primary residence or a vacation home, as the occupants could be present at any time. The court held that the 'inhabited-uninhabited' distinction turns on the character of the building's use, not the immediate presence of an occupant. As long as a person with possessory rights uses the place as sleeping quarters and intends to do so again in the future, it remains an inhabited dwelling. The law also protects the heightened expectation of privacy in one's home, where personal mementos and heirlooms are kept, an interest that extends equally to vacation homes.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that the term 'inhabited dwelling' in burglary statutes is interpreted broadly to protect the safety and privacy interests of homeowners, regardless of whether a home is their primary or secondary residence. It establishes that the potential for violent confrontation and the expectation of privacy, rather than the frequency or constancy of occupation, are the key factors. This precedent makes it significantly easier for prosecutors to secure first-degree burglary convictions for burglaries of vacation homes, seasonal cabins, and other part-time residences, affirming that the law's protection of a 'home' is not diminished by its part-time use.
