In re H.W. CA3
2 Cal. App. 5th 937
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- Minor H.W. was observed at a Sears in Yuba City entering with an apparently empty backpack, acting suspiciously, and removing an anti-theft tag from a pair of jeans using pliers.
- Store loss-prevention agents watched him hide the jeans in the backpack and leave the store without paying; police recovered the jeans and a pair of pliers from the backpack. The minor had no money or ID.
- A juvenile petition alleged theft (Pen. Code § 484), possession of burglary tools (Pen. Code § 466), and trespass; the court sustained theft and burglary-tools allegations but not trespass.
- The juvenile court adjudged H.W. a ward, committed him to two days in juvenile hall (with credit), and set a maximum confinement of eight months; H.W. appealed only the § 466 burglary-tools finding.
- The sole legal question: whether the pliers qualified as an "other instrument or tool" under § 466 and whether there was sufficient evidence of felonious intent to use them for breaking or entering.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (H.W.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pliers constitute an "other instrument or tool" under Penal Code § 466 | Pliers are tools used to remove security tags and were possessed and used by H.W. to steal merchandise, fitting within § 466’s "other instrument or tool" language | Pliers are not listed in § 466 and are not similar to enumerated items; no evidence they can be used to break into buildings/vehicles | Court held pliers are an "other instrument or tool" when possessed with felonious intent and affirmed the § 466 finding |
| Whether there was sufficient evidence of felonious intent to use the pliers for breaking or entering | Evidence showed H.W. entered with pliers in an empty backpack, had no means to pay, removed an anti-theft device, concealed the jeans, and left—showing intent to use the tool for a burglarious purpose | Argued insufficient proof the pliers were procured or possessed with intent to commit breaking/entering as required by § 466 | Court held circumstantial evidence supported inference H.W. procured and used the pliers for a burglarious purpose; intent element satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Southard, 152 Cal.App.4th 1079 (discusses elements of § 466 and that intent need not specify place or precise manner)
- People v. Kelly, 154 Cal.App.4th 961 (holds "other instrument or tool" includes items shown by evidence to be possessed with intent to use for burglary)
- People v. Gordon, 90 Cal.App.4th 1409 (applies ejusdem generis to narrow § 466; reversed under facts involving spark plug chips)
- People v. Diaz, 207 Cal.App.4th 396 (interprets § 466 narrowly; held common items not shown to be used to gain access are insufficient)
- People v. Cain, 10 Cal.4th 1 (intent element for burglary-tool offenses may be proven circumstantially)
- People v. Gauze, 15 Cal.3d 709 (entry with intent to commit a felony can constitute burglary even during business hours)
- People v. Snow, 30 Cal.4th 43 (standard of appellate review for sufficiency of evidence)