Jewell v. State
672 N.E. 2d 417, 1996 Ind. App. LEXIS 1106, 1996 WL 496788 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The element of burglary requiring entry into the 'dwelling of another person' is satisfied if the entry was unauthorized, regardless of the defendant's prior cohabitation or property interest in the dwelling, when the defendant no longer resides there and the remaining occupant has sole control over access.
Facts:
- Bridget Fisher purchased a home in her name, where she later lived with her husband, Barry L. Jewell, who contributed 'sweat equity' to the property.
- After experiencing marital difficulties, Jewell moved out of the home and dissolution proceedings were initiated.
- Bridget changed the locks on the house and, through her attorney, informed Jewell that he was not to come by the house anymore.
- Bridget resumed a romantic relationship with Chris Jones, which angered Jewell.
- Jewell threatened to assault Jones with a 2x4 board and amputate his penis, and was later observed watching Bridget's house.
- On June 18, 1991, at approximately 4:00 a.m., Jewell gained entry to Bridget's house by removing a screen and climbing through a kitchen window.
- Inside the home, Jewell beat Jones unconscious with a board, amputated his penis with a knife, and fed the severed organ to a dog.
Procedural Posture:
- Barry L. Jewell was initially convicted at a jury trial in an Indiana trial court.
- Jewell appealed to the Indiana Court of Appeals (an intermediate appellate court), which reversed his conviction and ordered a new trial.
- Upon retrial in the trial court, a jury again convicted Jewell of Burglary, a class A felony, and Battery, a class C felony.
- The trial court sentenced Jewell to an aggregate term of 48 years imprisonment.
- Jewell (as appellant) now appeals his convictions from the retrial to the Indiana Court of Appeals, with the State of Indiana as appellee.
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 an estranged spouse's unauthorized entry into the former marital home, over which the other spouse has sole control of access, constitute burglary by breaking and entering the 'dwelling of another person' under Indiana law?
Opinions:
Majority - Robertson, Judge.
Yes. An estranged spouse's entry into the former marital home constitutes burglary if the entry was unauthorized. The court reasoned that the statutory requirement that the dwelling be that 'of another person' is satisfied when a defendant's entry is not permitted, even if the defendant may have a legal property interest in the residence. Citing Ellyson v. State, the court emphasized that the determinative factor is the lack of authority to enter, not legal title. Here, Jewell had moved out, dissolution proceedings were pending, Bridget had changed the locks, and she had expressly told him to stay away, thus making his entry unauthorized. The court also rejected Jewell's other claims, finding that his incriminating statements to a jailhouse informant were admissible because the informant was a 'passive listener' who did not induce the statements, and that there was no double jeopardy violation because the burglary and battery convictions were based on distinct criminal acts causing separate injuries.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the legal principle that the 'of another person' element in burglary statutes is defined by the right to possession and authorized access, not by property title. It clarifies that a person can be convicted of burglarizing their own former home if their right to enter has been revoked, which has significant implications for domestic disputes. The ruling provides a clearer legal framework for protecting residents from unauthorized entry by estranged partners, shifting the legal focus from ownership rights to the immediate right of occupancy and control.
