People v. Quesada
169 Cal.Rptr. 881, 113 Cal.App.3d 533 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A private citizen's use of deadly force to apprehend a felon is justifiable only when the underlying felony is a 'dangerous' one that threatens death or great bodily harm. A residential burglary committed when no one is on the premises is not, as a matter of law, a felony that automatically justifies the use of deadly force for apprehension.
Facts:
- The defendant's apartment was burglarized at night while he was away, and several valuable items, including a stereo, were stolen.
- Two days later, a neighbor, Art Sanchez, informed the defendant that a man named Edie was attempting to sell a stereo matching the description of the stolen one.
- Sanchez warned the defendant that Edie was a dangerous, drug-addicted ex-convict who sometimes carried a gun.
- The defendant and Sanchez devised a plan to recover the stereo by having Sanchez arrange a fake purchase from Edie at Sanchez's house, where the defendant and his friends would be waiting to apprehend Edie.
- After Edie brought the stereo into Sanchez's house and received payment, he returned to his car to leave.
- The defendant confronted Edie at his locked car, telling him to 'freeze.' As a companion tried to grab Edie from the passenger side, Edie reached under his seat.
- Believing Edie was reaching for a gun, the defendant backed away as Edie accelerated his car.
- The defendant, armed with a pistol, fired into the car's driver's side door and then fired the rest of his bullets at the car as Edie drove away, killing him.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was charged with murder and use of a firearm in a California superior court (trial court).
- At trial, the defendant argued that the homicide was justified as a lawful attempt to apprehend a felon.
- The trial court refused the defendant's request for a jury instruction that first-degree burglary is, as a matter of law, a felony justifying deadly force.
- The jury found the defendant guilty of the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter and found true the firearm use allegation.
- The trial court suspended the sentence and granted probation.
- The defendant (appellant) appealed the judgment to the California Court of Appeal.
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 residential burglary, committed at night while the premises are unoccupied, necessarily constitute a felony that threatens death or great bodily harm, thereby justifying a private citizen's use of deadly force to apprehend the burglar as a matter of law?
Opinions:
Majority - Grodin, J.
No. A residential burglary committed when the premises are unoccupied does not, as a matter of law, constitute a felony threatening death or great bodily harm that automatically justifies a private citizen's use of deadly force in apprehension. The modern common law rule, as interpreted through precedent like People v. Ceballos, limits the justification for using deadly force under Penal Code section 197 to situations involving 'dangerous' felonies. Ceballos established that using deadly force (a trap gun) to prevent a burglary of an unoccupied dwelling is not justified because the crime, under those circumstances, does not threaten death or serious bodily harm. The court extends this reasoning from crime prevention to apprehension, holding that the 'character and manner' of the felony determine its dangerousness. Because no one was present during this burglary, it did not create a reasonable fear of great bodily harm, and thus the trial court correctly allowed the jury to determine as a matter of fact whether the circumstances warranted the use of deadly force, rather than instructing them that it was justified as a matter of law.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and narrows the scope of the citizen's arrest privilege concerning the use of deadly force in California. It firmly rejects a categorical rule that all residential burglaries justify deadly force, instead requiring a case-by-case factual analysis by the jury. The ruling solidifies the principle that the right to use deadly force is tied to the protection of human life, not merely property or the apprehension of all felons. This creates a higher bar for citizens claiming justification for homicide and emphasizes that the 'dangerousness' of a felony depends on its specific circumstances, not just its statutory definition.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Quesada