## Facts

- Rosario Montoya and codefendant Raymond Gaxiola were charged with burglary of an inhabited dwelling and resisting arrest under California law.
- Gaxiola pleaded guilty to both charges; Montoya pleaded guilty to resisting arrest and proceeded to trial on the burglary charge.
- The prosecution pursued burglary liability on alternative theories: Montoya acted as the direct perpetrator or as an aider and abettor of Gaxiola.
- The trial court instructed the jury on burglary and general aiding-and-abetting principles but did not give a specific instruction stating when an aider and abettor must form the intent to encourage or facilitate the burglary.
- The jury convicted Montoya of burglary of an inhabited dwelling.
- On appeal, Montoya argued the trial court had a sua sponte duty to instruct that accomplice intent had to be formed before or at the moment of the principal’s entry because burglary is completed upon entry with felonious intent.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant may be convicted of aiding and abetting burglary if the defendant forms the intent to encourage or facilitate the burglary after the principal enters but before the principal leaves the dwelling.
2. Whether the trial court had a sua sponte duty to instruct on the specific time by which an aider and abettor must form the requisite intent in a burglary prosecution.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court affirmed the judgment upholding Montoya’s burglary conviction.
- The Court held that, for aiding-and-abetting liability, a defendant may be guilty of burglary if the defendant forms the requisite intent before the principal departs the building.
- The Court held the trial court did not commit reversible error by failing sua sponte to instruct the jury on a more specific timing requirement for accomplice intent.

## Legal Principles

- Aiding-and-abetting liability requires the intent to encourage, facilitate, or assist the offense to be formed before or during the offense’s commission.
- For accomplice liability purposes, burglary is treated as continuing at least until the intruder leaves the structure, even though the offense’s elements are satisfied upon entry with felonious intent.
- A defendant may aid and abet burglary by forming the requisite intent at any time after entry and before the principal exits the premises.
- A trial court generally has no sua sponte duty to provide a specialized timing instruction on when an aider and abettor must form intent where general aiding-and-abetting instructions are given and the record does not present a factual dispute requiring further clarification absent a defense request.

## Conclusion

The court treated burglary as continuing through the perpetrator’s presence in the building for accomplice-liability timing, allowing aider-and-abettor intent to arise after entry but before exit, and it found no sua sponte instructional error in omitting a more precise timing instruction.


People v. Montoya, 874 P.2d 903 (Cal. 1994)