6 Cal. 5th 1068
Cal.2019Background
- Minor H.W. entered a Sears store, used a pair of pliers to remove an anti-theft tag from jeans, placed the jeans in his backpack, and left without paying.
- Store loss-prevention personnel observed H.W. on surveillance, saw him use pliers to remove the tag, and detained him when he exited; police found no money or identification on H.W.
- Sacramento County filed a juvenile petition alleging petty theft (Pen. Code § 484) and possession of burglary tools (Pen. Code § 466); the juvenile court sustained both allegations and placed H.W. on probation.
- On appeal the Court of Appeal upheld the § 466 finding, treating the pliers as an “other instrument or tool” and concluding H.W. possessed them with a burglarious purpose to steal inside the store.
- The California Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether generic pliers fall within “other instrument or tool” in § 466 and what mental state § 466 requires.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pliers constitute an “other instrument or tool” under Pen. Code § 466 | §466’s broad “other instrument or tool” language can include pliers not expressly listed | Pliers are not similar to enumerated items (e.g., vise-grip), ejusdem generis requires narrow reading | Even if pliers qualify as “other instrument or tool,” outcome does not depend on that point; court resolves case on intent ground |
| What mental state § 466 requires (“intent feloniously to break or enter”) | The statute requires intent to commit theft or any felony inside a structure (aligning with burglary intent) | Liability should be limited to tools intended to effectuate physical breaking or entry (not mere intent to commit theft) | §466 requires intent to use the instrument or tool to break or otherwise effectuate physical entry into a structure to commit theft or another felony there |
| Whether evidence showed H.W. possessed pliers with required intent under § 466 | Pliers were used to facilitate theft inside the store; thus H.W. had the requisite intent | H.W. intended only to remove an anti-theft tag to commit petty theft, not to break or effectuate entry | Insufficient evidence: H.W. intended only to remove the tag to steal the jeans, not to use the pliers to break or enter; §466 allegation reversed |
| Scope of § 466 vis-à-vis burglary statute § 459 | §466’s language echoes burglary and should be read broadly to prevent substantive crimes | §466’s specific phrase "break or enter" narrows the required intent to use tools to effectuate physical entry | Court reads §466 as focused on intent to break or effectuate physical entry; distinguishes it from mere intent to commit theft inside a structure |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Kelly, 154 Cal.App.4th 961 (Cal. Ct. App.) (interpreting “other instrument or tool” and requiring evidence of intent to use tool for burglary)
- People v. Diaz, 207 Cal.App.4th 396 (Cal. Ct. App.) (construing §466 narrowly to items designed for breaking or entering)
- People v. Gordon, 90 Cal.App.4th 1409 (Cal. Ct. App.) (narrow interpretation of §466; later discussed in Kelly)
- People v. Southard, 152 Cal.App.4th 1079 (Cal. Ct. App.) (discussing "burglarious purpose" and tools used to facilitate theft)
- People v. Hubbard, 63 Cal.4th 378 (Cal.) (statutory interpretation principles)
- People v. Garcia, 62 Cal.4th 1116 (Cal.) (historical context on burglary statute amendments)
- People v. Sparks, 28 Cal.4th 71 (Cal.) (common-law burglary element background)