Magness v. Superior Court
54 Cal. 4th 270
| Cal. | 2012Background
- Petitioner Magness charged with attempted first degree burglary of an inhabited dwelling and second degree burglary of a motor vehicle.
- Event: resident Loop heard garage door open, observed Magness near driveway, Magness fled and Loop saw him enter the residence.
- Remote control for garage door found near end of driveway; Loop had locked it in his car in the driveway; car window was partially down.
- Preliminary hearing prosecutor argued for completed burglary; magistrate and later courts debated whether garage-door opening constitutes entry.
- Court of Appeal ruled no completed burglary; conviction could be for attempted burglary if any entry did not occur; Supreme Court granted review to resolve the entry element.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does opening a garage door via remote control constitute entry for burglary? | Magness | Magness | No; opening the garage door does not penetrate the residence boundary. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Davis, 18 Cal.4th 712 (Cal. 1998) (entry by instrument to enable burglary sufficient)
- People v. Valencia, 28 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2002) (entry may be by instrument; any entry inside required)
- People v. Gauze, 15 Cal.3d 709 (Cal. 1975) (burglary focuses on invasion of possessory interest; entry essential)
- People v. Calderon, 158 Cal.App.4th 137 (Cal. App. 2007) (discussed entry and door-kicking scenarios; clarified entry requires physical intrusion)
- People v. Ravenscroft, 198 Cal.App.3d 639 (Cal. App. 1988) (air-space theory rejected in favor of physical entry)
- People v. Osegueda, 163 Cal.App.3d Supp. 25 (Cal. App. 1987) (illustrates entry via penetration into outer boundary)
- People v. Barry, 94 Cal. 481 (Cal. 1892) (abolished common-law breaking requirement; focus on entry)