Return to CALJIC Part 14-17 – Contents
F 16.431 n1 Drunk In Public: “Public Place” Defined (PC 647(f)).
The question of whether the front yard area of a private residence is a “public place” within the meaning of PC 647(f) was addressed in People v. White (91) 227 CA3d 886, 892-93 [278 CR 48]. The White court concluded that the presence of a fence, gate and dogs all provided a challenge to public access into the front yard area and thus the evidence was insufficient to find that the front yard was a public place even though the defendant was exposed to public view. (But see In re Danny H. (2002) 104 CA4th 92 [128 CR2d 222] [holding that railroad trestle is public place even though it was private property; trestle was not enclosed, was visible to public and exposed to general view].) Therefore, when there is evidence that access to the yard area is challenged, CJ 16.431 should be modified to provide: (1) if the public’s access to the yard area is challenged, the yard is not a public place, and (2) exposure to public view is not sufficient for conviction.
See also People v. Jimenez (95) 33 CA4th 54, 60 [39 CR2d 12], which held that a private driveway is a “public area” within the meaning of the school proximity enhancement (HS 11353.6); but expressing no view on whether a private driveway should be considered a “public place” for purposes of PC 647. (Jiminez 33 CA4th 60, fn 3.)
