Lacey v. Commonwealth
2009 Va. App. LEXIS 214, 675 S.E.2d 846, 54 Va. App. 32 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For the purposes of statutory burglary, an attached garage that is structurally and functionally integrated with a house is considered part of the 'dwelling house.' Therefore, entering a dwelling house through an open attached garage without force, followed by a forcible entry into an interior room, does not satisfy the 'breaking' element required for statutory burglary, as the initial entry into the dwelling was not a breaking.
Facts:
- On May 5, 2007, H.F. was at his Virginia Beach home working in his yard while one of his attached garage doors was open.
- The garage was structurally integrated with the house, sharing a single roof and a continuous brick wall, and had an interior door connecting to a utility room which then led to the main house.
- H.F. went into the garage to work on his tree trimmer, which he stored there.
- Inside, H.F. saw Michael Eugene Lacey emerge from the utility room that connected the garage to the house.
- After a brief confrontation where H.F. accused Lacey of burglarizing the house, Lacey fled the scene.
- H.F. then discovered that $152 in cash was missing from his wallet, which had been in his bedroom.
Procedural Posture:
- A grand jury indicted Michael Eugene Lacey for statutory burglary and third or subsequent offense petit larceny.
- Lacey was tried by a jury in the trial court.
- During the trial, Lacey moved to strike the statutory burglary charge, arguing the Commonwealth's evidence failed to show a 'breaking' into the dwelling house.
- The trial court denied Lacey's motion to strike.
- The jury convicted Lacey on both the statutory burglary and petit larceny charges.
- The day after the verdict, Lacey moved for a mistrial regarding the larceny conviction due to a defective jury form, which the trial court denied.
- The trial court entered a final order finding Lacey guilty on both counts, and Lacey, as the appellant, appealed his convictions to the Court of Appeals of Virginia, with the Commonwealth 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 a person commit statutory burglary by entering a dwelling house through an open, attached garage and then subsequently breaking into an interior room of the house?
Opinions:
Majority - Haley, J.
No. Entering a dwelling house through an open, attached garage and subsequently breaking into an interior room does not constitute statutory burglary. The court reasoned that the primary purpose of burglary statutes is to protect the sanctity of the habitation. Persuaded by the reasoning of other jurisdictions, the court held that an attached garage that is both structurally and functionally integrated with a residence is considered part of the 'dwelling house.' In this case, H.F.'s garage shared a roof and wall with the house, had an interior connecting door, and was used for ordinary household functions. Therefore, when Lacey entered the open garage, he had already entered the dwelling house without a 'breaking.' His subsequent forcible entry into the utility room constituted a breaking within the dwelling, not a breaking into the dwelling from the outside, which is required by the burglary statute. Citing Hitt v. Commonwealth, the court concluded that an intra-house breaking, following a non-forcible entry into the dwelling itself, does not satisfy the elements of statutory burglary.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the legal definition of a 'dwelling house' under Virginia's burglary statutes, explicitly extending it to include structurally and functionally integrated attached garages. By doing so, the court aligns Virginia with the majority of jurisdictions that treat such garages as integral parts of the home rather than separate outbuildings. The ruling narrows the application of the burglary statute by reinforcing that the required 'breaking' must occur at the outer boundary of the dwelling. Consequently, future prosecutions for burglary will need to prove a forcible entry into the integral structure itself, not merely a forcible entry into a room after a permissive or non-forcible entry into an attached part of the home like an open garage.
