People v. Southard
62 Cal. Rptr. 3d 48, 152 Cal. App. 4th 1079, 2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 1092 (2007)
Rule of Law:
The intent to use burglary tools for a felonious purpose under Penal Code section 466 may be inferred from the totality of circumstances, including the defendant's flight from law enforcement, possession of non-statutory items associated with burglary (such as masks and dark clothing), and the defendant's own statements characterizing the items as 'burglary tools.'
Facts:
- Officer Apperson observed Southard speeding and running stop signs in a residential neighborhood.
- Southard refused to stop when ordered, leading police on a high-speed chase reaching approximately 90 miles per hour.
- Southard abandoned his vehicle and fled on foot into a swamp, where he hid until apprehended.
- A search of Southard's abandoned vehicle revealed tools listed in the burglary statute, including a pry bar, crowbar, bolt cutters, and a sledgehammer.
- Officers also found non-statutory items in the vehicle, including black sweatshirts, a ski mask, walkie-talkie radios, binoculars, and a bundle of over 100 keys.
- Upon arrest, Southard claimed he fled because his license was suspended.
- Months later, while speaking with a deputy district attorney, Southard explicitly requested the return of his 'burglary tools,' a comment the attorney perceived as a joke.
Procedural Posture:
- The State filed a complaint charging Southard with felony evasion and misdemeanor possession of burglary tools.
- At the preliminary hearing, the magistrate court dismissed the burglary tools charge due to insufficient evidence of intent.
- The prosecution moved to amend the information to re-allege the burglary tools charge.
- The trial court granted the motion to amend over the defense's objection.
- A jury convicted Southard on both the felony evasion and misdemeanor possession counts.
- Southard appealed the misdemeanor conviction to the 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:
Is there sufficient evidence to prove a defendant possessed tools with the felonious intent to break or enter when the tools were found in a vehicle alongside suspicious non-statutory items following a high-speed flight from police, and the defendant subsequently requested the return of his 'burglary tools'?
Opinions:
Majority - Richman, J.
Yes, the totality of the evidence provided sufficient proof of the defendant's felonious intent. The court reasoned that while possession of tools alone is not a crime, the intent element can be proven by circumstantial evidence. Distinguishing this case from Cook v. Superior Court, the court found admissible evidence of intent in four key areas: 1) the possession of non-statutory items (mask, radios) alongside the tools; 2) the defendant's flight from police, which indicated consciousness of guilt; 3) the fact that the tools were transported in a passenger vehicle rather than stored in a workshop; and 4) the defendant's specific request for his 'burglary tools,' which the jury was entitled to take seriously despite the prosecutor's interpretation of it as a joke.
Analysis:
This case significantly broadens the evidentiary scope for proving the 'intent' element in possession of burglary tools cases. It establishes that items not strictly listed in the statute (like binoculars or dark clothing) are relevant and admissible to prove the criminal purpose of the statutory tools. Furthermore, it reinforces that post-crime conduct, such as flight from police, can serve as substantial evidence of the specific intent to use tools for burglary, even without proof of a specific target building or a prior history of theft.
