166 Cal. Rptr. 3d 697
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant Richard Goolsby lived in a motor home on a vacant lot and owned multiple motor homes parked there.
- After an argument with cohabitant Kathleen Burley, defendant pushed an inoperable motor home next to the one they occupied and set the inoperable unit on fire with gasoline.
- The fire spread and destroyed both motor homes; Burley escaped.
- Prosecutor charged defendant with arson of an inhabited structure (Pen. Code § 451(b)) and alleged he caused multiple structures to burn.
- Jury convicted of arson of an inhabited structure and found the multiple-structure enhancement true; trial court sentenced under the Three Strikes law.
- On appeal the primary factual/legal dispute concerned whether a motor home qualifies as a “structure” under the arson statutes and whether retrial or reduction to arson of property was available.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the motor home is a “structure” under the arson statutes | Motor home can functionally be a building and thus a structure | A motor home is a vehicle and not affixed/permanent; statutory "structure" requires permanence | Motor home is not a structure as a matter of law absent evidence it was fixed to the ground; conviction for arson of an inhabited structure unsupported |
| Sufficiency of evidence for multiple-structure enhancement | Burning two motor homes supports enhancement for multiple structures | Enhancement fails if motor homes are not structures | Enhancement unsupported because motor homes are not statutory structures |
| Whether conviction can be reduced to arson of property (lesser offense) under Penal Code § 1181(6) | N/A (prosecutor did not charge arson of property in amended information) | Reduction to arson of property appropriate instead of reversal | Cannot reduce: arson of property is a lesser related, not a necessarily included, offense, so § 1181(6) unavailable |
| Whether remand for retrial on arson of property is permitted | N/A | Retrial for arson of property is permissible | Remand/retrial barred: prosecutor failed to charge arson of property and multiple-prosecution/§ 654 and Kellett principles bar subsequent prosecution; result = reversal and dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Labaer, 88 Cal.App.4th 289 (Cal. Ct. App.) (mobilehome can be a building/structure when fixed in place)
- People v. Hughes, 27 Cal.4th 287 (Cal. 2002) (test for whether an offense is necessarily included in a greater offense)
- Kellett v. Superior Court, 63 Cal.2d 822 (Cal. 1965) (prosecution must join all offenses arising from same act or be barred from later prosecuting omitted offenses)
- Sanders v. Superior Court, 76 Cal.App.4th 609 (Cal. Ct. App.) (reversal for insufficiency bars subsequent prosecution on omitted offenses)
- Orlina v. Superior Court, 73 Cal.App.4th 258 (Cal. Ct. App.) (defendant who requests instruction on uncharged lesser offense may be treated as consenting to trial on it)
- People v. Toro, 47 Cal.3d 966 (Cal. 1989) (no difference in principle between adding an offense by amending information and by jury instruction; failure to object can forfeit notice objections)