Opinion ID: 2630926
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Burglary (Letner, Tobin)

Text: (24) Similar to their other challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, defendants point to evidence that assertedly contradicts the finding that they entered Pontbriant's home with the intent to commit a felony and committed the murder while engaged in the commission of the burglary. (See § 459 [Every person who enters any house . . . with intent to commit grand or petit larceny or any felony is guilty of burglary.].) As discussed above, however, we have concluded there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that defendants robbed and attempted to rape Pontbriant. As the prosecution argued to the jury, it is reasonable to infer from the circumstance that defendants committed these crimes that they possessed the intent to do so at the time they entered Pontbriant's house. A rational juror reasonably could find that a purely social visit to a friend's house did not spontaneously lead to the attempted rape, robbery, and brutal murder of the hostess. The circumstance that Pontbriant may have willingly invited defendants into her house is of no consequence. ( Wallace, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 1060 [The crime of burglary, however, requires only an entry with the requisite intent; the entry need not be accomplished by force. (italics omitted)].) The circumstance that defendants apparently waited some period of time prior to attacking Pontbriant, during which the three of them consumed alcoholic beverages, could be viewed as an attempt to make defendants' task easier by reducing the possibility that Pontbriant would be able to resist. Further, Letner's participation in the telephone calls to Edward Burdette and Kathy Coronado could indicate he was not concerned whether they in turn eventually would inform the police he had been present in Pontbriant's house, because he believed either that the person with whom Pontbriant was speaking on the telephone when defendants first arrived knew that Letner was there, or that, if the police were to begin looking for him, he nonetheless would be able to escape to Iowa. Alternatively, the jury reasonably could find that Letner simply joined in the telephone calls in anger or on impulse, without reflecting upon the possible consequences. In sum, as we recently observed regarding a similar challenge, possession . . . of goods stolen from the victim's home shortly after the crimes is strong circumstantial evidence that [defendant] harbored the intent to commit larceny when he entered her home. [Citation.] Moreover, `[t]here is no better proof that [defendant] entered the [victim's house] with intent to commit robbery than a showing he did in fact commit robbery after his entry.' [Citation.] ( People v. Abilez (2007) 41 Cal.4th 472, 508 [61 Cal.Rptr.3d 526, 161 P.3d 58] ( Abilez ).) Accordingly, we conclude the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that defendants committed a burglary and intentionally killed Pontbriant while engaged in the burglary.