People v. Allard, 279 P. 182 (Cal. Ct. App. 1929). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Allard, 279 P. 182 (Cal. Ct. App. 1929). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
42 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Tessman (calctapp, 2014-02-18)
Treatment trajectory · 1930 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1930 1978 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Tessman
Cal. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
(People v. Allard (1929) 99 Cal.App. 591, 592 [ 279 P. 182 ].) The Allard court stated: “It has never been held that a person loses his residence by reason of a brief absence from the house where he lives, and without evidence of an intention to depart therefrom and go to live in some other place.” (Ibid.) “Numerous cases following Allard have held that a residence is still ‘inhabited’ for purposes of [section] 460 even though the residents of the house are temporarily away from the premises, where they have indicated no intention to stop living there.” (People v. Guthrie (1983) 14…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Cruz (2×)
Cal. · 1996 · confidence medium
More technically, courts have explained that the term “inhabited dwelling house” means a “structure where people ordinarily live and which is currently being used for dwelling purposes. [Citation.] A place is an inhabited dwelling if a person with possessory rights uses the place as sleeping quarters intending to continue doing so in the future.” (People v. Fleetwood (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 982, 987-988 [ 217 Cal.Rptr. 612 ]; see also People v. Guthrie, supra, 144 Cal.App.3d at p. 838 ; People v. Cardona (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 481, 484 [ 191 Cal.Rptr. 109 ]; People v. Allard (1929) 99 Cal…
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Harris
Cal. Ct. App. · 1968 · confidence medium
(People v. Allard, 99 Cal.App. 591, 592 [ 279 P. 182 ]; People v. Tittle, 258 Cal.App.2d 518, 524 [ 65 Cal.Rptr. 576 ]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Valdez
Cal. Ct. App. · 1962 · confidence medium
(People v. Gilbert, 188 Cal.App.2d 723, 726 [ 10 Cal.Rptr. 799 ]; People v. Loggins, 132 Cal.App.2d 736, 738 [ 282 P.2d 961 ]; People v. Allard, 99 Cal.App. 591, 592 [ 279 P. 182 ].) However, the dwelling house in the case at bar, at the time in question, was not the residence of a person who was temporarily absent.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Gilbert
Cal. Ct. App. · 1961 · confidence medium
(People v. Loggins, 132 Cal.App.2d 736, 738 [ 282 P.2d 961 ] ; People v. Stewart, 113 Cal.App.2d 687, 691 [ 248 P.2d 768 ]; People v. Hann, 104 Cal.App. 492, 493 [ 285 P. 1070 ]; People v. Allard, 99 Cal.App. 591, 592 [ 179 P. 182 ].) We turn first to the contention of the appellant that the evidence was insufficient to show that the entry was in the nighttime.
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Loggins
Cal. Ct. App. · 1955 · confidence medium
(People v. Allard, 99 Cal.App. 591, 592 [179 P. *739 182]; People v. Stewart, 113 Cal.App.2d 687, 691 [ 248 P.2d 768 ].) The evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
The PEOPLE, Respondent,
v.
JOSEPH ALBERT ALLARD, Appellant
Docket No. 1782..
California Court of Appeal.
Jun 24, 1929.
279 P. 182
Whelan, Whelan & Smith for Appellant., U. S. Webb, Attorney-General, and John D. Richer, Deputy Attorney-General, for Respondent.
Craig.
Cited by 20 opinions  |  Published
CRAIG, J.

The appellant was found guilty of first degree burglary and was sentenced accordingly. He appeals, and bases his claim for reversal upon alleged insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict.

It appears that a house, the property of one R. P. Low, was burglarized by defendant who, at the time was unarmed. The crime was committed in the night-time and the house was not occupied on that particular night. Low and his family lived there, but, as testified by him, “were just away for two or three days.”

The argument presented by appellant is, that under these circumstances the house was not “inhabited” as required by section 460 of the Penal Code, in order that the burglary may be first degree where the person committing the crime is not armed with a deadly weapon.

An inhabitant of a house is one who resides therein, and “inhabitancy” and “residence” are synonymous terms. (Harding v. Standard Oil Co., 182 Fed. 421.) It has never been held that a person loses his residence by reason of a brief absence from the house where he lives, and without evidence of an intention to depart therefrom and go to live in some other place. Under a statute similar to ours, where a family lived in the house but were away on vacation, it was held to be an inhabited dwelling-house. (Mason v. State, 27 Ohio C. C. 526.)

We consider the evidence in this case entirely sufficient.

The judgment is affirmed.

Thompson (Ira F.), J., concurred.

Works, P. J., being absent, did not participate in this opinion.