People v. Little
206 Cal. App. 4th 1364
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Open house held at Irvine residence; Little and Shipman entered with owners away.
- Wallet with credit cards, Nordstrom gift card, and lottery ticket later disappeared.
- Police tracked suspects after Konkol identified Little and Shipman from field identifications.
- Little and Shipman detained near the scene; credit cards found in the truck.
- Little was convicted of first-degree residential burglary, second-degree commercial burglary, and fraudulent use of an access card.
- Open-house alibi and admission of being at church were used to challenge counts two and three.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| First-degree burglary viability | Little argues open house means not inhabited dwelling. | Little argues lack of dwelling purpose during open house. | Home remained inhabited; first-degree burglary affirmed. |
| Probable cause to search the truck | Probable cause lacking based on limited description. | Stop/search was improper without sufficient corroboration. | Probable cause established; suppression denied. |
| Admission of prior theft conviction for impeachment | Jacobs permits impeachment via prior convictions when alibi evidence is admitted. | Jacobs should limit application; 1202/788 interplay uncertain. | Jacobs followed; prior conviction admitted for impeachment with proper safeguards. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel's tactics in eliciting alibi and prior convictions were deficient. | Tactics were reasonable strategic decisions. | No ineffective assistance; decisions within reasonable strategy. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Meredith, 174 Cal.App.4th 1257 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (structure once dwelling; inhabited when occupants intend to return)
- People v. Marquez, 143 Cal.App.3d 797 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983) (intent to inhabit determines habitation; brief absence not abandonment)
- People v. Jacobs, 78 Cal.App.4th 1444 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (impeachment with prior felonies when exculpatory hearsay is admitted)
- People v. Riel, 22 Cal.4th 1153 (Cal. Supreme Court 2000) (trial court discretion under Evidence Code 352; balancing probative value and prejudice)
- People v. Navarez, 169 Cal.App.3d 936 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985) (requires weighing probative value against prejudice; explicit balancing)
- People v. Redd, 48 Cal.4th 691 (Cal. Supreme Court 2010) (standard for suppression rulings; defer to trial court findings)