Patterson v. State
729 N.E.2d 1035 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Proof of an illegal breaking and entering into a dwelling, coupled with flight, is insufficient, without more, to establish the specific intent to commit a felony therein required for a conviction of attempted burglary.
Facts:
- Several days prior to the incident, Samuel Patterson had approached eighty-two-year-old Julia Maciejewski at her home, asking for work shoveling snow.
- Around 4:00 a.m. on December 6, 1997, Maciejewski was awakened by the sound of breaking glass.
- Upon investigating, Maciejewski discovered a broken window in her sunroom, glass on the floor, and blood on the curtains.
- Maciejewski had turned on lights throughout her house as she went to investigate the noise.
- Police arrived to find Patterson lurking behind Maciejewski's house.
- Patterson fled on foot but was apprehended by police; he was bleeding and commented that he knew he should not have broken the window.
- Patterson never fully entered the house and there was no evidence that he touched, disturbed, or approached any valuable property.
Procedural Posture:
- Samuel Patterson was charged with attempted burglary in an Indiana trial court.
- Following a jury trial, Patterson was convicted of attempted burglary.
- The jury also found him to be a habitual offender.
- The trial court sentenced Patterson to fifty years of imprisonment.
- Patterson, as the appellant, appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals of Indiana, with the State of Indiana as the 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:
Is evidence of an illegal breaking and entering into a dwelling, followed by flight upon detection, sufficient to prove the defendant had the specific intent to commit theft, as required for an attempted burglary conviction?
Opinions:
Majority - Kirsch, Judge
No, evidence of an illegal breaking and entering into a dwelling, followed by flight upon detection, is insufficient to prove the specific intent to commit theft required for an attempted burglary conviction. Following the precedent set in Gilliam v. State and subsequent cases, the court held that proof of an illegal entry alone cannot support an inference that the defendant intended to commit the specific underlying felony charged. The prosecution must present additional corroborative evidence that points to the defendant's specific criminal intent. Here, Patterson's criminal endeavor was thwarted before he could take any action inside the home from which his intent could be inferred. The only evidence presented was the breaking of the window and his subsequent flight upon likely detection, which, under Indiana Supreme Court precedent, is insufficient to establish an intent to commit theft. Therefore, the conviction for attempted burglary must be reversed. However, the court found the evidence sufficient to support a conviction for the lesser included offense of residential entry, which requires only a knowing or intentional breaking and entering of a dwelling.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the heightened evidentiary standard required to prove the specific intent element of burglary in Indiana, particularly in cases of mere attempt. It underscores the principle that a defendant's intent cannot be inferred from the act of breaking and entering alone, even when combined with flight. This ruling presents a challenge for prosecutors in cases where a suspect is apprehended before their ultimate purpose becomes clear through their actions inside the premises. The court's remedy of modifying the judgment to a lesser included offense provides a pragmatic approach for appellate courts to ensure a conviction supported by the evidence, rather than ordering a full acquittal or new trial when only one element of the greater offense is lacking.
Unlock the full brief for Patterson v. State