Appellant entered the victim’s (Stephanie’s) house in attempt to track down another person, Trey, in order to assault him. In a subsequent burglary prosecution, the jury was instructed under CALJIC 14.50 regarding burglary. On appeal, appellant argued that the trial court had a sua sponte duty to instruct the jury that he must have had the intent to assault Trey within Stephanie’s apartment; otherwise the jury could have erroneously inferred the requisite intent element from appellant’s alleged intent to find and assault Trey at a place and time separate and distinct from the victim’s apartment. The appellate court disagreed. Penal Code section 459 does not require that a burglar intend to commit the target crime on the premises entered. Burglary may be found where the entry was made in order to facilitate commission of the subsequent crime, even though the subsequent crime may not share the attributes of proximity in time and place, but only where the subject entry is “closely connected” with and made in order to facilitate the intended crime. Here, the entry into the apartment was closely connected with and made in order to facilitate the intended crime of assaulting Trey. Therefore, the instructions were adequate.