People v. Diaz
207 Cal. App. 4th 396
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Diaz was convicted of first degree residential burglary, false representation to a police officer, and misdemeanor possession of burglary tools, with a jury finding a non-accomplice was present at the burglary.
- The burglary tools count rested on possession of a bag and latex gloves found in Diaz’s backpack/bag, claimed by officers to be burglary tools.
- The trial court sentenced Diaz to prison but suspended execution and placed her on probation with a one-year jail term.
- Diaz challenges the burglary tools conviction as not supported by substantial evidence and argues the gloves and bag are not among statutory burglary tools.
- The court considers whether latex gloves and a bag fall within section 466’s burglary tool enumeration or the broader ‘other instrument or tool’ language.
- The court ultimately reverses the burglary tools conviction, holding the gloves and bag do not constitute burglary tools under section 466.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether gloves and bag are burglary tools under §466 | Diaz argues items are not within §466’s enumerated or general tools. | People contends tools include ‘other instrument or tool’ used for burglary, citing Kelly and purpose of §466. | Gloves and bag are not burglary tools; conviction reversed. |
| Whether the burglary tools conviction is supported by substantial evidence | Diaz asserts lack of evidence they were used to break into or gain access. | People argues officers’ experience connecting gloves to fingerprint avoidance supports intent to burglary. | Substantial evidence does not support the tools conviction; limited to Gordon interpretation. |
| Whether the trial court’s failure to define theft affected the verdict | Diaz contends error in not defining theft for the jury. | State did not address the issue explicitly; argues no prejudice from the omission. | No prejudicial error identified; affirmed in other respects. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Gordon, 90 Cal.App.4th 1409 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (ejusdem generis limits section 466 tools to similar instruments)
- People v. Kelly, 154 Cal.App.4th 961 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (upheld burglary-tools evidence, noted legislative amendment adding spark plug chips)
- Gonzalez v. People, 43 Cal.4th 1118 (Cal. 2008) (statutory language unambiguous; purpose not always required)
- People v. Southard, 152 Cal.App.4th 1079 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (three elements for possession of burglary tools; test for sufficiency of evidence)
- People v. Kwok, 63 Cal.App.4th 1236 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Martin v. PacifiCare of California, 198 Cal.App.4th 1390 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (ejusdem generis significance of general versus specific terms)