Bruce v. Commonwealth
1996 Va. App. LEXIS 268, 22 Va. App. 264, 469 S.E.2d 64 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For the crime of burglary, the element of 'breaking' can be satisfied when an individual, already inside a dwelling, opens a closed door from within for the specific purpose of facilitating a subsequent re-entry to commit a crime. The breaking and the entry need not be simultaneous, as long as the criminal intent is present at the time of both acts.
Facts:
- Donnie Lee Bruce and his wife, Deborah Bruce, were estranged and living in separate residences in late 1993.
- Donnie Bruce did not have a key or permission to enter Deborah Bruce's trailer, where she lived with their son.
- On December 5, 1993, after being told Deborah would not be home, Donnie Bruce entered her trailer through the closed but unlocked front door.
- While inside, Bruce answered a phone call from a man with whom Deborah was having an affair, which angered him.
- Angered, Bruce threw and broke the telephone, exited the residence through the closed back door, and left the door standing open.
- He then retrieved a .32 automatic gun from his truck, which was parked nearby.
- Bruce re-entered the residence through the open back door with the gun, went to Deborah's bedroom, and lay on her bed with the weapon and liquor.
Procedural Posture:
- Donnie Lee Bruce was charged with breaking and entering a residence while armed with a deadly weapon with the intent to commit assault.
- On May 24, 1994, a jury in the Circuit Court of Albemarle County found Bruce guilty of the charge.
- Bruce, as the appellant, appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals of Virginia.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant commit a 'breaking' for the purposes of burglary when, having already gained entry without breaking, he opens a closed door from the inside to exit with the intent to facilitate a subsequent re-entry to commit a crime?
Opinions:
Majority - Elder, Judge
Yes. A defendant commits a 'breaking' for the purposes of burglary by opening a closed door from within to facilitate a re-entry for a criminal purpose. The court reasoned that the gravamen of burglary is violating the sanctity of the residence, which can be accomplished from within or without. Although Bruce's initial entry did not involve a breaking with felonious intent, his subsequent actions did. When Bruce opened the closed back door from the inside, he applied the slight force necessary to constitute a 'breaking.' This act was not for escape, but was done with the intent to facilitate his re-entry with a weapon to commit an assault. Citing legal scholarship, the court held that the breaking and the entry need not be concomitant, so long as the intent to commit the substantive crime is concomitant with both the breaking and the entering. Therefore, the act of opening the door from within to enable a criminal re-entry satisfies the breaking element of burglary.
Analysis:
This decision expands the traditional definition of the 'breaking' element in burglary law. It establishes the principle of a 'breaking from within,' clarifying that the act of breaking does not have to be the initial means of ingress. The ruling decouples the temporal relationship between the breaking and the entry, holding that they can be separate acts as long as they are linked by a continuous criminal intent. This precedent will likely influence future burglary cases where a defendant's intent is formed after a lawful or non-forceful entry, making it possible to convict on burglary charges for actions taken to facilitate a criminal re-entry.
