California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division
APPEAL
from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, No.
SCN183440, David J. Danielsen, Judge.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Page 405
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Page 406
COUNSEL
Edward
Mahler, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala
D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant
Attorney General, Theodore M. Cropley and Warren J. Williams,
Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Opinion
by Huffman, J., with Benke, Acting P. J., and Haller, J.,
concurring.
OPINION
[205
Cal.Rptr.3d 89] HUFFMAN, J.
This
is another case dealing with the proper interpretation of
newly created Penal Code[1] section 459.5[2] regarding
shoplifting. We are
Page 407
aware our Supreme Court [205 Cal.Rptr.3d 90] has granted
review in numerous cases including opinions on opposing
interpretations of the statute. Ultimately our high court
will provide guidance on the interpretation and application
of the statute. In the interim, it is our obligation to make
our best efforts to correctly interpret and apply the
section.
The
question presented by this appeal is whether a defendant must
commit or intend to commit common law larceny at the time the
person enters a commercial establishment during regular
business hours. The parties do not dispute the building was a
commercial establishment, that it ...