Court Opinion

ID: 9617288
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:54:05.374316+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:07.904425
License: Public Domain

VALLÉE, J.
I dissent. I cannot join in the majority’s strained construction of the statute. I do not believe that the lid or cover of the trunk of an automobile is a door within the meaning of the statute. When the Legislature used the word “doors” I think it had in mind the side doors of the vehicle. Automobiles are commonly referred to as two-door cars and four-door cars—and the reference is to the side doors. Anyone reading the statute would naturally understand that it referred only to the side doors of a car. Words and phrases used in a statute must be construed according to the context and the approved usage of the language. (Pen. Code, § 7, subd. 16.) The cover of an ordinary trunk, which is lifted up as is the cover of the trunk of an automobile, is not commonly called a door. I would be interested to know whether the majority would construe the statute as including the hood of an automobile, which covers the motor and may be locked on some cars, as within the meaning of the word “door.” If the Legislature had intended to include the lid or cover of a trunk compartment as one of the means of entrance which must be locked in order that an entrance *468would constitute burglary, it "would have added words to the definition of burglary which would include entry into a locked trunk. Furthermore, the statute requires that all doors be locked. If any one of them is left unlocked, entry for the purpose of theft would not constitute burglary. If the cover of a trunk is a “door” of the vehicle, and if the side doors are locked and the trunk is not, then breaking into the vehicle through the side doors would not constitute burglary and the statute would fall far short of its objective. Although the intentions of one bent on theft are the same whether he enters a locked trunk or through a side door of a car, and entering a trunk is equally reprehensible, these considerations do not warrant the courts in legislating and enlarging the definition of burglary beyond the reasonable and commonly understood meaning of the word which the Legislature has employed in defining the offense. If something has been left out of the statute which should have been included, it is a matter for the Legislature. As the statute now reads the evidence disclosed no more than the commission by the defendants of theft and the court did not err in dismissing the information. I would affirm the order.
A petition for a rehearing was denied March 13, 1957. Vallée, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted. The petition of respondent Philander Smith for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied April 10, 1957.