People v. Ceballos

Supreme Court of California · 1974 · Criminal Law

526 P.2d 241 (1974)

Updated August 1, 2026

Criminal Lawdefense of propertyspring gunsassault with a deadly weaponspring guntrap gunburglaryjustifiable homicide

Facts

After noticing pry marks and a bent lock on his garage doors, defendant mounted a loaded .22 caliber pistol in his garage and connected it by wire so it would fire when the door was opened several inches. Two teenage boys returned while defendant was away; neither was armed with a gun or knife, and one removed the lock with a crowbar and opened the door, whereupon the gun fired and struck him in the face. Defendant admitted setting the trap gun to keep burglars out and to protect his property. He also said he feared a thief might be in the home when he returned and might arm himself.

Issue

May a homeowner avoid criminal liability for assault with a deadly weapon when he sets a spring gun in an unoccupied garage to shoot an intruder attempting burglary? More specifically, was defendant's use of a deadly mechanical device justified under California rules governing prevention of felonies, defense of habitation or property, or apprehension of a felon?

Rule

In criminal cases, California does not adopt any exception that would excuse injuries inflicted by a deadly mechanical device merely because the actor might have been privileged to use deadly force if personally present. Deadly force to prevent a felony under Penal Code section 197 is justified only when the felony is a forcible and atrocious crime whose character and manner reasonably create a fear of death or serious bodily harm; burglary under Penal Code section 459 is not automatically such a crime. Deadly force may not be used solely to protect property, and justification to apprehend a felon under section 197(4) requires an intent to apprehend.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Fresno, Elena Ruiz owns a detached workshop behind her house where she stores power tools. After several thefts, she rigs a loaded shotgun to fire when the workshop door is pulled open, leaves for the weekend, and a nighttime trespasser trying to steal tools is badly injured.

If Elena is prosecuted for assault with a deadly weapon, which is the strongest argument that her conduct was not justified?

Explanation. The majority rule is that deadly mechanical devices may not be used merely to protect property. The court rejected any criminal-law rule allowing a person to do mechanically what the person might have done directly if present. Burglary is not automatically enough, and where the circumstances do not actually threaten death or serious bodily harm, deadly force is unjustified.