Lexplug logoLexplug

Nichols v. State

Wisconsin Supreme Court
32 N.W. 543 (1887)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Gaining entry into a structure with felonious intent by means of fraud, artifice, or trickery constitutes a constructive 'breaking' for the purposes of a burglary statute, even if no physical force is used.


Facts:

  • W. H. Eldredge checked into a hotel in Black River Falls.
  • He had a large box weighing about 150 pounds delivered to his room.
  • Eldredge arranged with the local express agent to ship the box, which he represented as weighing about 225 pounds, to Chicago.
  • The express agent, unaware of the contents, had the box loaded onto the express car of a Chicago-bound train.
  • Eldredge was concealed inside the box with a revolver, billy club, razor, knife, rope, and chloroform.
  • After his capture, Eldredge admitted he planned to steal up to $50,000 from the express car and that a human life standing in his way 'did not amount to a snap of the finger.'

Procedural Posture:

  • The State prosecuted the plaintiff in error (defendant) in the circuit court (trial court).
  • The defendant was convicted by a jury under an information charging him with breaking and entering a railroad car with felonious intent.
  • The defendant filed a motion in arrest of judgment, arguing that the facts did not constitute a 'breaking' under the statute.
  • The defendant appealed his conviction to the state's highest court.

Locked

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 gaining entry into a railroad express car by concealing oneself inside a shipping box, which is then loaded onto the car by unsuspecting agents, constitute a 'breaking and entering' under a burglary statute?


Opinions:

Majority - Cassoday, J.

Yes, gaining entry into a railroad car by concealing oneself in a box constitutes a constructive 'breaking and entering.' The court reasoned that a 'breaking' under burglary statutes is not limited to physical force. It also includes constructive breaking, which occurs when entry is gained through fraud, artifice, or trickery. The defendant unlawfully gained entrance without the knowledge or consent of those in charge of the car by means of 'false pretenses, fraud, gross imposition, and circumvention.' The court looked to the common law definition of burglary, citing Blackstone, which held that entries achieved by trickery (e.g., pretending to take lodgings and then robbing the owner) were considered burglaries. The legislature is presumed to have adopted this settled common law meaning of 'break' when it enacted the statute. Therefore, the defendant's deceptive act of having himself shipped in a box was legally equivalent to a physical breaking.



Analysis:

This decision solidifies the doctrine of constructive breaking within statutory burglary law, extending it from traditional dwellings to other protected structures like railroad cars. It clarifies that the essence of a 'breaking' is the circumvention of security and the violation of consent, not necessarily the application of physical force. The ruling ensures that the law is not 'trifled with by such evasions,' preventing defendants from escaping liability for burglary simply by using cleverness and deception instead of a crowbar. This precedent makes it clear that the focus is on the unauthorized and fraudulent nature of the entry, broadening the scope of what prosecutors can charge as burglary.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Nichols v. State (1887) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Nichols v. State