Return to CALJIC Part 9-12 – Contents
F 9.42.1a
Residential Burglary:
In-Concert Requires Three Or More Persons
*Add to CJ 9.42.1:
4. Three or more persons entered the inhabited dwelling house [or] [the inhabited portion of any other building].
Points and Authorities
In 1994, PC 213 was amended to provide additional punishment for a residential robbery which is committed “in concert with two or more persons, . . . .” (Section 213, subd. (a)(1)(A).) Given the legislative history underlying the amendment, it is clear that an element of the offense is that at least three people must enter the premises.
The contemporaneous analysis of the bill reveals that the Legislature wanted to deter “home invasion style robberies.” (Senate Floor Analysis of AB 779 (1993-1994 Reg. Session, p. 1.) Specifically, the bill was aimed at “invasions which are an aggravated kind of property theft and intimidation executed by groups of persons acting in concert who enter into people’s homes to terrorize them.” (Id., at p. 2.)
Given this purpose, PC 213 requires proof that at least three people entered the residence. Absent such proof, the purpose underlying the statute cannot possibly be satisfied (i.e. there has been no “home invasion” by a group.) (People v. Craft (86) 41 C3d 554, 559 [224 CR 626] [statute must be construed in a manner consistent with its purpose].)
F 9.42.1b
Robbery In Concert:
Home Invasion — Requirement That
Three Or More Persons Actually Enter
The Inhabited Dwelling
*Add to CJ 9.42.1:
4. Three or more persons entered the inhabited dwelling house [or] [the inhabited portion of any other building].
Points and Authorities
In 1994, PC 213 was amended to provide additional punishment for a residential robbery which is committed “in concert with two or more persons, . . . .” (PC 213(a)(1)(A).) Given the legislative history underlying the amendment, it is clear that an element of the offense is that at least three people must enter the premises.
The contemporaneous analysis of the bill reveals that the Legislature wanted to deter “home invasion style robberies.” (Senate Floor Analysis of AB 779 (1993-1994 Reg. Session, p. 1.) Specifically, the bill was aimed at “invasions which are an aggravated kind of property theft and intimidation executed by groups of persons acting in concert who enter into people’s homes to terrorize them.” (Id., at p. 2.)
Given this purpose, section 213 requires proof that at least three people entered the residence. Absent such proof, the purpose underlying the statute cannot possibly be satisfied (i.e. there has been no “home invasion” by a group.) (People v. Craft (86) 41 C3d 554, 559; statute must be construed in a manner consistent with its purpose.)
Failure to adequately instruct the jury upon any element of the charge and/or the prosecution’s burden of proof thereon violates the defendant’s state (Art. I, § 15 and § 16) and federal (6th and 14th Amendments) constitutional rights to trial by jury and due process. (Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 US 466 [147 LEd2d 435; 120 SCt 2348]; Neder v. U.S. (99) 527 US 1 [144 LEd2d 35; 119 SCt 1827]; In re Winship (70) 397 US 358 [25 LEd2d 368; 90 SCt 1068]; see also generally, FORECITE PG VII(C).)
