People v. Montoya

Facts

Salcido and her boyfriend, Gaxiola, lived together intermittently, and, during the summer of 1990. They visited an apartment occupied by Hernandez a number of times. Salcido's and Gaxiola's relationship ended in September 1990. On September 26, 1990, a next-door neighbor to Herhandez, Perez, noticed a man, identified as D, standing next to the passenger side of a Datsun 210, facing an open door, and holding up a map. Gaxiola was also observed carrying a television set. When asked what they were doing, Gaxiola informed Perez 'they were moving some things that belonged to his cousin' and would leave shortly. D did not say anything and did not look up while Perez spoke with Gaxiola. When Perez told Gaxiola to move the automobile, he responded that they were leaving. After noticing a Nintendo game and a videocassette recorder inside the Datsun, Perez told her son to remember the make and license plate number of the Datsun. Perez and her son then drove away. Eventually, the police were called. They concluded that entry to the apartment had been effected through the sliding glass door. They discovered shoe tracks from two distinct pairs of shoes leading from the dirt easement, just outside the fence, approximately twenty feet to the parking area. Although the investigators were unable to determine that the tracks had been made by the shoes later seized from D and Gaxiola, they were unable to exclude that possibility. Police then spotted the car, and when the police car pulled behind the Datsun, it accelerated and made several turns. The Datsun was pulled over by the Police. As they approached the driver, Gaxiola, suddenly departed on foot. D was the passenger and was told to place his hands behind his back. As the deputy grabbed D's left hand, D pulled his hand away, pushed the deputy, and ran down the street. A citizen pursued and captured Gaxiola. D got away. D was found in an attic hiding place inside Gaxiola's girlfriend's apartment. While in jail, Gaxiola made a number of telephone calls to Salcido as well as to Candolita and Hernandez at the latter's residence. He denied involvement in the burglary, claiming he simply had accompanied friends who said they were moving property belonging to an aunt and disclaimed knowledge that the apartment was Hernandez's residence. Gaxiola eventually provided specific information as to the location of most of the property and offered to replace the Nintendo game. The residents of that apartment informed the officers they had purchased the property for $200 from two Hispanic men who had come to their door offering to sell the items. The officers also seized another television and videocassette recorder that the residents stated they previously had purchased from the same two men. Gaxiola was a heroin user who admitted having suffered three prior convictions for burglary in 1980, 1982, and 1987, and a conviction for receiving stolen property in 1986. He stole the key to Hernandez's apartment and had a duplicate made, and returned the key without being detected. Gaxiola appeared at D's apartment and told him Gaxiola needed help in retrieving his property from his girlfriend's residence. Gaxiola drove with D in a borrowed vehicle to the area behind Hernandez's residence, where D accompanied Gaxiola to the front door. Gaxiola unlocked the deadbolt lock and instructed D to return to the vehicle and lower the rear seat in order to make more space for the items to be transported. Gaxiola entered alone through the front door. He carried the television set out the front door along the walkway to the Datsun, placed it on the ground, returned with the videocassette recorder and other items, and was preparing to load the television set into the Datsun when he was approached and questioned by Perez. Gaxiola then reentered the apartment, opened the sliding glass door at the rear of the apartment, called to D, and handed him a sandwich over the back fence. Upon hearing someone knocking at the front door, Gaxiola left through the sliding glass door leading to the patio, scaling the back fence after tossing a Nintendo game and a bag of other items over the fence. According to Gaxiola, D did not assist Gaxiola, was unaware Gaxiola was committing a burglary and was not acting as a 'lookout.' Gaxiola told D that the articles belonged to him and that he wished to sell them. The two men proceeded to the apartment on Larcus Street where, with D's assistance as a Spanish interpreter, Gaxiola sold the property. Gaxiola did not share any of the proceeds of the sale with D. D testified and admitted three prior convictions for forgery. D had known Gaxiola approximately one month and did not know where Gaxiola lived. Several days prior to the date of the burglary, Gaxiola had driven D to an apartment telling D he was picking up property at a friend's residence. They subsequently transported the items obtained by Gaxiola to an apartment on Larcus Street, where, with D acting as a Spanish interpreter, Gaxiola sold the items to the occupants. D did not know Gaxiola was selling stolen property. D did not consider it unusual that Gaxiola collected property from one location and sold it elsewhere, because Gaxiola knew a great number of persons. On the morning of September 26, 1990, Gaxiola said his girlfriend had 'run him out' and that Gaxiola had to remove some of his belongings from her apartment or she would be angry. Gaxiola drove with D in the Datsun to an apartment D previously had not visited. Gaxiola proceeded to the front door and unlocked and opened it. Defendant did not enter the apartment. Gaxiola appeared pleased to find no one home and instructed defendant to return to the Datsun and lower the rear seat. D testified he was unaware Gaxiola was committing a burglary because Gaxiola had a key and had told D he was picking up his own belongings, which D assumed to be a reference to clothing. They then answered Perez's questions and proceeded to the same apartment on Larcus Street where they had sold other items several days previously. The trial court instructed the jury as to the elements of burglary and as to liability on a theory of aiding and abetting. Defendant did not request, and the trial court did not provide, any instruction informing the jury at what point in time defendant must have formed the intent to commit, encourage, or facilitate the offense of burglary in order to be found guilty on a theory of aiding and abetting. D was found guilty of burglary. D appealed. The Court of Appeal affirmed. D appealed. 

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.