People v. Rubino
Annotate this CaseDefendant lived in a San Jose mobile home park. On September 3, 2013, the manager noticed a strong gasoline odor at her office, emitting from a metal drop box accessible to the outside through a wall slot. Liquid spilled onto the floor as she opened the box, which contained envelopes, each containing an open miniature liquor bottle, a partially burned rolled-up envelope, and matches. The manager used a towel to absorb the liquid, which she described as gasoline. She contacted the police after reviewing surveillance videos, which showed defendant approaching the box five times in various dress and placing objects in the slot, including flaming paper, then running away. A responding officer noticed an overwhelming smell of gasoline in the office. An arson investigator smelled gasoline there two days later and testified that the fire had insufficient air in the drop box. Defendant had many conflicts with management. He had complained to the district attorney and felt the office had not taken him seriously. Changing his story from his initial interview, defendant testified he decided to stage a crime to prove he was being treated unfairly but did not intend to cause harm. The court of appeal affirmed his conviction, rejecting defendant’s argument that the standard jury instruction, CALCRIM 1520, was constitutionally deficient as ambiguous and for failing to instruct on specific intent. The instruction accurately tracks Penal Code 455 and includes all elements of the offense.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.