Magness v. Superior Court
California Supreme Court
278 P.3d 259 (2012)

- Written by Kelli Lanski, JD
Facts
One evening, homeowner Timothy Loop was in his house when he heard his garage door opening. He looked outside and saw Christopher Magness (defendant) standing near the end of Loop’s driveway. Magness ran, and Loop chased him until Magness ran into a nearby home. Loop called police, who arrested Magness, and Magness was charged with attempted burglary and burglary of a home. During the investigation, police found Loop’s garage-door remote control on the end of his driveway near where Magness had been standing. Loop stated that he had locked the opener in his car, which was parked outside his house, and police also found that the car-window seal had been peeled back and the window had been pushed down a few inches, suggesting that Magness broke into the car to get the opener. Before trial, Magness asked the magistrate to reduce the charge to attempted burglary because he did not actually enter Loop’s home and complete a burglary. The magistrate refused, ruling that opening the garage door constituted an entry. Magness filed a writ of prohibition seeking to overturn the magistrate’s ruling, and the court of appeals agreed with Magness. The prosecution filed a petition to the California Supreme Court seeking further review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Liu, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.