California Court of Appeal

Conviction of defendant for first degree burglary is affirmed as defendant's argument that the jury instructions on the elements of burglary erroneously imposed a presumption that the balcony in this case qualified as a building for purposes of Penal Code section 459 is rejected as, whether the balcony was part of the structure was not a jury question and, even had the trial court erred by including the term "balcony" in the definition of burglary, the undisputed evidence is that defendant was halfway inside the apartment and halfway on the balcony when a witness saw him.

Appellate Information

• Decided 12/08/2010
• Published 12/08/2010

Judges

• WILLHITE

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Randall Conner, Edmund G. Brown, Jr.