Summary
The Supreme Court of Washington held that a child's license to enter a family home or room within it may be limited expressly or by clear implication, and that a locked bedroom door provided sufficient implied notice of an unlawful entry. The court further held that the trial court improperly applied a mandatory presumption of criminal intent under RCW 9A.52.040, relieving the State of its burden to prove every element of residential burglary beyond a reasonable doubt. The court reversed the Court of Appeals, vacated the conviction without prejudice, and remanded.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a juvenile's presumed license to enter a parent's home may be limited by clear implication, including a locked bedroom door, so that entry into the room is unlawful for purposes of residential burglary.
- Whether the trial court violated due process by applying RCW 9A.52.040 as a mandatory presumption that shifted to Cantu the burden of disproving criminal intent.
- Whether the mandatory-presumption error was harmless.
Holdings
- A child's license to enter the family home, or any room within it, may be limited expressly or by clear implication. A locked bedroom door may provide clear implied notice that permission to enter the home does not extend to the bedroom.
- The trial court impermissibly employed a mandatory presumption of criminal intent, relieving the State of its burden to prove every essential element of residential burglary beyond a reasonable doubt and requiring Cantu to provide sufficient evidence of innocent intent.
- The constitutional error was not harmless on this record.
Key quotations
“We agree and hold that a child's license to enter the family home, or any room within, may be limited expressly or by clear implication.” (132 P.3d at 728)
“A fair interpretation of this statement, along with the prosecutor's discussion of the statutory inference provided in RCW 9A.52.040, leads this court to conclude that the trial judge impermissibly employed a mandatory presumption of criminal intent, making it incumbent upon Cantu to prove, with sufficient evidence, that his intent was innocent.” (132 P.3d at 730)
“We therefore reverse the Court of Appeals, vacate the conviction without prejudice, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” (132 P.3d at 730)
Factual background
Seventeen-year-old Antonio Cantu entered his mother's home and broke through the dead-bolt-locked door to her bedroom. Cantu's mother testified that he was not living there and did not have permission to enter the bedroom; items including money, beer, and pain pills were reported missing, although some or all were later returned. Cantu claimed that he accidentally broke the door while playing with his dogs and entered the bedroom only to close the door. The trial judge convicted him of residential burglary after relying on an inference of criminal intent.
Procedural history
Cantu was charged with residential burglary, third-degree theft, minor in possession of alcohol, and possession of a legend drug. The trial court convicted him only of residential burglary and found insufficient evidence on the other charges. The Court of Appeals affirmed the burglary conviction. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, vacated the conviction without prejudice, and remanded.
Remand instructions
The Court of Appeals judgment was reversed, the residential burglary conviction was vacated without prejudice, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.