Caseflicks

California Court of Appeal • 1970

People v. Staples

6 Cal. App. 3d 61 | 85 Cal. Rptr. 589 | 1970 Cal. App. LEXIS 1308

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that clearly purposeful drilling toward entry into a bank vault is a criminal attempt, not mere preparation, and a later abandonment does not undo the completed attempt.

Background

While his wife was away, Staples rented, under an assumed name, a second-floor Hollywood office directly above a bank vault. Knowing the building’s layout, he brought drilling tools, acetylene tanks, a blowtorch, a blanket, and linoleum into the office. On a Saturday when he had learned the building would be empty, he drilled two sets of holes into the office floor above the bank’s mezzanine, stopping before he penetrated the floor completely.

Staples later stated in writing that he had rented the office and brought in the equipment intending to burglarize the bank, and that drilling was the actual commencement of that plan. He said he later reconsidered the scheme, although he returned several times thinking he might store the tools and continue drilling slowly while concealing the holes with linoleum. The landlord eventually retook control of the premises, delivered the equipment to police, and Staples was arrested.

Staples waived a jury trial, and the trial court decided the case on the preliminary-hearing transcript and exhibits. It found him guilty of attempted burglary, suspended proceedings before sentence, and granted probation. Staples appealed from the probation order, which was treated as a final judgment.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the evidence established Staples’s specific intent to burglarize the bank.

Holding

Yes. Staples’s own written statement and his conduct supplied clear evidence that he specifically intended to burglarize the bank vault.

Reasoning

Attempted burglary requires proof both of a specific intent to commit burglary and an overt act that goes beyond mere preparation. The intent element was plainly met: Staples admitted that he rented the office to burglarize the bank, brought equipment for that purpose, and began drilling with the object of entering the bank.

reasoning

Issue #2

Whether Staples’s conduct, especially drilling into the office floor above the vault, went beyond mere preparation and constituted an attempted burglary.

Holding

Yes. The drilling was an unequivocal, direct step toward burglary and was sufficient to support an attempt conviction.

Reasoning

California’s attempt law does not demand that a defendant perform the final act needed to complete the target crime. An overt act is enough when it is a first or later step in a direct movement toward committing the offense after preparations have been made. This rule allows police and courts to intervene before a suspect actually breaks into a building or completes the intended crime.

reasoning

The court acknowledged that the line between preparation and attempt cannot be reduced to a precise formula. Preparatory acts ordinarily involve devising or arranging the means for a crime; an attempt begins with a direct movement toward its commission. Where criminal intent is clearly established, acts that might otherwise appear ambiguous can qualify as an attempt because their criminal purpose is no longer uncertain.

reasoning

Staples crossed that line when he drilled holes in the floor immediately above the bank vault. The drilling was not merely acquiring tools, renting a location, or planning a method. It was the beginning of the contemplated breaking element of the burglary, caused actual property damage, and was one of a series of acts that ordinary experience indicated would lead to entry into the bank.

reasoning

Staples’s own description reinforced that conclusion. He called the drilling the actual commencement of his plan and contemplated returning to continue drilling while concealing the holes. On this record, the trial judge could reasonably find that the conduct had advanced beyond preparation even without deciding the exact moment at which the attempt was complete.

Issue #3

Whether Staples’s claimed change of heart or the absence of direct proof that police interrupted him defeated liability for attempt.

Holding

No. Once Staples had committed an attempt, later abandonment—even if voluntary—did not exculpate him; moreover, the court could infer that the landlord’s retaking of the office and delivery of the equipment to police effectively intercepted the scheme.

Reasoning

The court distinguished cases in which a defendant has done every act planned but fails because of an outside circumstance, such as a missed shot or malfunctioning weapon. In those cases, an external failure or prevention explains why the substantive crime was not completed. But California also recognizes attempts in which the defendant is stopped before the last intended step, so long as the defendant has already undertaken a direct movement toward the crime.

reasoning

Although there was no direct evidence that Staples was caught in the midst of drilling, the trial judge could infer that he realized the landlord had resumed control of the office and surrendered his equipment to the police. That inference supported treating the events as an effective interception of the ongoing plan.

reasoning

In any event, the character of Staples’s abandonment was not controlling. A voluntary change of heart may matter before conduct becomes an attempt, but it does not erase liability after the defendant, with the required criminal intent, has committed an act creating sufficient harm or danger of harm. Staples’s drilling had already reached that point.