## Facts

- Ruben Simon Quesada, Jr.’s apartment was burglarized at night while no one was home; property including a stereo was stolen.
- Two days later, a neighbor arranged for a suspect (“Edie”) to bring a stereo to the neighbor’s apartment, allowing Quesada to identify and recover his property.
- When Edie attempted to leave in a vehicle, Quesada and a companion tried to stop him; Quesada fired multiple shots at the vehicle.
- One shot struck Edie in the chest, killing him.
- Quesada claimed the homicide was justified because he was attempting a lawful apprehension of a felon (citizen’s arrest) after a burglary.

## Issues

1. Whether first-degree nighttime burglary of an unoccupied dwelling is, as a matter of law, a felony “which threatens death or great bodily harm,” permitting deadly force to apprehend the burglar under Penal Code § 197(4).
2. Whether the firearm-use finding had to be stricken because firearm use was an element of the involuntary manslaughter offense of conviction.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment.
- The court held that burglary of an unoccupied residence at night is not per se a felony threatening death or great bodily harm for purposes of justifiable homicide in apprehension.
- The trial court properly refused a categorical instruction and properly left the “dangerous felony” determination to the jury based on the circumstances.
- The firearm-use finding was valid because firearm use was not a statutory element of involuntary manslaughter as charged and instructed.

## Legal Principles

- Justifiable homicide in attempting to apprehend a felon under Penal Code § 197(4) is limited to situations where the underlying felony threatens death or great bodily harm.
- A private person may not use deadly force merely to prevent, stop, or arrest for a non-dangerous felony; characterizing the act as an “arrest” does not expand permissible force.
- Residential burglary of an unoccupied dwelling, even if first-degree and committed at night, is not automatically treated as a dangerous felony; the jury may consider the surrounding facts in deciding whether the felony posed the required level of threat.
- A firearm-use enhancement may be imposed unless firearm use is an element of the offense as defined by statute and as presented to the jury.

## Conclusion

The court upheld an involuntary manslaughter conviction for a defendant who shot a suspected burglar fleeing with stolen property, ruling that deadly force in apprehension is justified only for felonies threatening death or great bodily harm and that nighttime burglary of an unoccupied dwelling does not automatically meet that standard; it also sustained a firearm-use finding because firearm use was not an element of the manslaughter offense.


People v. Quesada, 113 Cal. App. 3d 533 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980)