What is the effect of the Court of Appeal's ruling that the duration of a burglary lasts until the perpetrator leaves the structure?

While dissenting from the majority's conclusion that the duration of a burglary lasts until the perpetrator's departure from the structure, rather than entry, I would affirm the judgment because I agree that, in this case, the judge had no sua sponte duty to give CALJIC No. 14.54 or a similar instruction. Although the evidence in this case certainly could have been interpreted to lead the jury to the conclusion that the defendant formed his intent to assist the perpetrator's criminal activity after the perpetrator had entered the structure, neither the prosecution nor the defense relied on such a theory, nor was that theory conspicuously implied from the evidence presented. Therefore, although it would have been proper for the trial court to have given the jury a CALJIC No. 14.54 instruction if so requested, the majority correctly conclude that the trial court was not obliged to uncover on its own theories that the evidence presented would not "strongly illuminate and place before [it]." People v. Wade (1959) 53 Cal.2d 322, 335, 1 Cal.Rptr. 683, 348 P.2d 116. On that limited basis I concur in the majority's judgment.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.