28 Cal.App.5th 535
Cal. Ct. App.2018Background
- On Oct. 31, 2014, two men (Bedolla and Mariscal) were seen outside A.D.’s home; Mariscal kicked the front door repeatedly but no entry occurred. A.D., a minor, was inside. Police arrived quickly and detained both men; A.D. identified them.
- Bedolla was charged with attempted first degree burglary (Pen. Code §§ 664, 459, 460(a)) and an accompanying special-circumstance allegation under Penal Code § 667.5(c)(21) that a non‑accomplice was present in the residence during the burglary.
- At trial Bedolla testified; he admitted intoxication that day, a 2014 misdemeanor for giving a false name to an officer, and a 2013 juvenile adjudication for a felony nontheft-related crime (sanitized at trial as a "felony nontheft-related crime of moral turpitude"). The jury convicted him of attempted first degree burglary and found the special circumstance true.
- The trial court instructed the jury both on liability as a direct perpetrator and as an aider and abettor, and gave voluntary-intoxication instructions in the context of each theory (CALCRIM Nos. 3426 and 404). Defense did not object to the instructions as given.
- The court admitted sanitized impeachment of the defendant based on the juvenile adjudication (omitting mention of a firearm) after balancing relevance and prejudice under Evidence Code § 352.
- On appeal the People conceded, and the Court of Appeal agreed, that the special‑circumstance finding relating to § 667.5(c)(21) must be stricken because the conviction was for an attempt and no entry occurred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 667.5(c)(21) special circumstance applies to attempted burglary | Special‑circumstance allegation properly pleaded and found true | § 667.5(c)(21) applies only to completed first‑degree burglaries; does not apply to attempts | Struck the true finding as § 667.5(c)(21) does not apply to attempt crimes; conviction otherwise affirmed (special circumstance stricken) |
| Whether voluntary‑intoxication instructions conflicted and deprived Bedolla of defense | Instructions were correct and not misleading; prosecutor’s argument clarified application | CALCRIM No. 3426 (limits intoxication to intent to commit theft) conflicted with CALCRIM No. 404 (intoxication may negate knowledge/intent to aid/abet), possibly preventing full consideration of intoxication defense | No reversible error: instructions read as a whole were not reasonably likely to mislead jurors; no prejudice shown |
| Whether admission of sanitized juvenile adjudication for carrying a loaded firearm was improper impeachment | Impeachment with prior moral‑turpitude offense was relevant to veracity and properly sanitized to avoid prejudice | The offense did not involve moral turpitude; sanitization invited speculation and prejudiced defendant | Admission not an abuse of discretion: carrying a loaded firearm in public involves moral turpitude and the sanitized impeachment was properly balanced under Evid. Code § 352; any error harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Ibarra, 134 Cal.App.3d 413 (consequence that § 667.5 generally does not apply to attempts)
- Magness v. Superior Court, 54 Cal.4th 270 (entry requires penetration of building boundary)
- People v. Mendoza, 18 Cal.4th 1114 (standard for reviewing voluntary intoxication instruction and prejudice analysis)
- People v. Hillhouse, 27 Cal.4th 469 (instructional contradictions affecting elements implicate substantial rights)
- People v. Castillo, 16 Cal.4th 1009 (instructions must be read as a whole; jurors can correlate instructions)
- People v. Hughes, 27 Cal.4th 287 (assessing potential misleading effect of intoxication instructions in context)
- People v. Aguilar, 245 Cal.App.4th 1010 (carrying/concealed firearm offenses may implicate moral turpitude due to public‑safety risk)
- People v. Castro, 38 Cal.3d 301 (least‑adjudicated‑elements test and the rationale for using moral turpitude convictions to impeach)
- People v. Wade, 63 Cal.4th 137 (legislative safety concerns about loaded firearms inform statutory interpretation)