Skip to content
Name: People v. Sigur
Case #: C071489
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 07/09/2015
Summary

Consent defense to burglary was not applicable where defendant entered home with minor’s permission to engage in sex acts with her without her parent’s knowledge. Sigur had a sexual relationship with a 13-year-old minor after meeting her in an Internet chat room. He secretly entered the minor’s bedroom to have sex with her several times at the home she lived in with her mother and grandmother. Sigur was convicted of multiple sex offenses as well as nine counts of burglary. As a defense to the burglaries, he claimed the minor consented to his entry into the home. The trial court denied his Penal Code section 1118.1 motion to acquit of the burglary charges, finding that while there was evidence the minor consented to Sigur’s entries, there was insufficient evidence that she knew of his felonious intent. The trial court did instruct the jury on the consent defense. On appeal, Sigur argued that the trial court erred in instructing on the consent defense and that the court should have granted his section 1118.1 motion. Held: Affirmed. After reviewing California case law and other state cases, the Court of Appeal concluded that the consent defense to burglary is inapplicable under the circumstances of this case. When the defendant has no right to enter the premises as an occupant, a defense of consent to enter for the purpose of engaging in felonious sexual conduct with a minor requires one of the following: (1) that the minor have a possessory interest equal to the parent and clearly invited the defendant to enter to engage in sexual conduct with the minor; (2) that the parent or other adult with a possessory interest expressly and clearly gave the defendant permission to enter for the purpose of engaging in sexual conduct with the minor; or (3) that the minor expressly and clearly gave permission to enter to engage in sexual conduct and had been given the authority to give that permission. Here, there was no evidence that the parent consented to Sigur’s entry into the home.