No. It's not burglary to enter your own home, even with bad intentions. The whole point of burglary laws is to protect people from the danger of an *intruder* breaking into their safe space. Since Gauze lived in the apartment, he wasn't an intruder. He had an absolute right to be there. The crime he committed was assault, but the act of walking through his own front door wasn't the separate crime of burglary.

No, you can't be guilty of burglary in your own home. The law is there to stop the danger from someone breaking in, not to punish people for what they do inside their own place. Gauze had every right to enter his apartment. Letting someone be convicted of burglary in their own home could lead to silly situations, like being guilty for planning to do something bad but then changing your mind. Gauze's burglary charge is cancelled, but he's still guilty of assault.

"A burglary remains an entry which invades a possessory right in a building. And it still must be committed by a person who has no right to be in the building

—based primarily upon a recognition of the dangers to personal safety created by the usual burglary situation—the danger that the intruder will harm the occupants in attempting to perpetrate the intended crime or to escape and the danger that the occupants will in anger or panic react violently to the invasion, thereby inviting more violence. The laws are primarily …

"[A] s our Supreme Court has observed, the reason why a person cannot be charged with burglarizing his own home is because he has an absolute right to enter his own home

"In contrast to the usual burglary situation, no danger arises from the mere entry of a person into his own home, no matter what his intent is. He may cause a great deal of mischief once inside. But no emotional distress is suffered, no panic is engendered, and no violence necessarily erupts merely because he walks into his house. To impose sanctions for burglary would …

In enacting section 459, "the Legislature has preserved the concept that burglary law is designed to protect a possessory right in property, rather than broadly to preserve any place from all crime

As explained in Gauze regarding the analogous situation of entry into a store: " `[A] party who enters with the intention to commit a felony enters without an invitation. He is not one of the public invited, nor is he entitled to enter. Such a party could be refused admission at the threshold, or ejected from the premises after the entry was accomplished.'...[A] person has an …

The appellate court reversed the burglary conviction because "defendant cannot be guilty of burglarizing his own home. His entry into the apartment, even for a felonious purpose, invaded no possessory right of habitation.... More importantly, defendant had an absolute right to enter the apartment... that could not be conditioned on the consent of defendant's roommates

—the defendant was convicted of burglary after he entered his own apartment with the intent to assault his roommate.

The following year our Supreme Court held that an NGI plea must be personally entered by a defendant, not by counsel, and that a court cannot compel an insanity defense

No. A person cannot be guilty of burglarizing their own home. The court reasoned that the burglary statute, despite its modern changes, retains the common law's core purpose of protecting a possessory right in a building from intrusion. Since Gauze had an absolute and unconditional right to enter his own apartment, his entry did not constitute an invasion of any possessory right held by his roommates. The court distinguished this from cases like People v. Barry, where entry into a public store is based on an implied invitation for legal purposes only. Gauze's right was personal and could not be revoked. The danger the burglary law is aimed at arises from an unauthorized entry by an intruder, which was not present here, as the danger was from the assault itself, not from Gauze's entry into his own home.

No, a person cannot be guilty of burglarizing their own home because their entry does not invade a possessory right of habitation and they have an absolute right to enter. The purpose of burglary laws is to protect against the danger caused by unauthorized entry, which is not present when a person enters their own home, even with felonious intent. The burglary statute has preserved the concept that burglary law is designed to protect a possessory right in property, rather than broadly to preserve any place from all crime. Allowing a person to be convicted of burglarizing their own home could lead to absurd results, such as being guilty of burglary for entering with the intent to commit a crime inside, even if they change their mind. The judgment of conviction for burglary is reversed, but the conviction for assault with a deadly weapon is affirmed.

The People v. James Matthew Gauze

Rule of Law:

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

Premium Content

Issue:

Opinions:

Majority - Mosk, J.

Analysis:

Gunnerbot