Reed v. Superior Court

KATZ, J. pro tem.

*

On August 14, 1965, a police officer observed petitioner and another man inside a store building located in what was described as the disaster or riot area of south Los Angeles. The front windows and door of the building had been broken out, affording easy access to the store, the back door was open, and the interior had recently been burned. The building contained foodstuffs such as are ordinarily found in markets. Most of the shelves and display racks were broken down and merchandise was piled in scattered heaps on the ground, although there were still items on some shelves. When first observed by the officer, petitioner was picking up a cardboard box or taking it from the hands of the other man. He was carrying the box when the officer entered the building and set it down when the officer approached him. Petitioner and the other man were arrested within the building and nothing was removed from the premises by either of them.

Petitioner was charged with burglary and held to answer after a preliminary hearing in the municipal court. By this proceeding in prohibition, he seeks to restrain respondent court from proceeding with his trial, contending that the evidence was insufficient to constitute reasonable or probable cause for his commitment. Petitioner argues that there was no .evidence that he entered the building with intent to commit theft, no evidence of ownership of the cardboard box, and no evidence that he did not have permission to enter the premises.

Burglary is the entry into a building with intent to commit theft or any felony. (Pen. Code, § 459.) The corpus delicti of a burglary may be proved by circumstantial evidence

(People

v.

Conley,

220 Cal.App.2d 296, 299 [33 Cal.Rptr. 866];

People

v.

Garrow,

130 Cal.App.2d 75 [278 P.2d 475]), and the intent with which an entry was made is usually inferred from the surrounding circumstances

(People

v.

Cloninger,

165 Cal.App.2d 86 [331 P.2d 441];

People

v.