People v. Walker
33 Cal. App. 2d 18 (1939)
Rule of Law:
Property that is illegally owned or possessed (contraband) can still be the subject of larceny or burglary because the possessor retains certain limited property rights against all parties other than the state.
Facts:
- Defendant Walker and his companions entered the premises of another person.
- While inside, they took two slot machines.
- The slot machines were contraband, making their ownership and possession illegal.
- Walker was a stranger to the owner of the premises and had no prior property interest or claim to the slot machines.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant, Walker, was charged with burglary in a trial court.
- Following a trial, Walker was convicted of burglary.
- Walker, as the appellant, appealed the judgment of conviction to the intermediate 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 entering a building with the intent to steal contraband property, specifically illegal slot machines, constitute the crime of burglary?
Opinions:
Majority - Pullen, P. J.
Yes, entering a building with the intent to steal contraband property constitutes burglary. The court reasoned that even though owning or possessing slot machines is illegal, the possessor still holds certain rights in the contraband article as against anyone other than the state. These rights, such as the privilege to destroy the machine or surrender it to authorities, invest the possessor with a tangible property interest. The court distinguished this case from People v. Rosen, where a defendant was reclaiming his own money lost in an illegal gambling game. Here, Walker was a total stranger with no claim to the property. Adopting a public policy rationale, the court concluded that allowing one person to steal the illegal gains of another would obstruct the administration of law; both offenders should be dealt with separately for their respective violations.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal principle that the unlawful nature of property does not serve as a defense to theft-related crimes. It clarifies that for the purposes of burglary and larceny, the term 'property of another' is interpreted broadly to include items where the possessor has even very limited rights, superior to those of the thief. This prevents a situation where the law would seem to permit a 'free-for-all' on illegal goods, reinforcing the state's overriding interest in preventing breaches of the peace and theft, regardless of the character of the goods involved. The ruling ensures that individuals cannot use a victim's illegal activity as a shield for their own criminal conduct.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: People v. Walker (1939)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"