People v. Cajigas
979 N.E.2d 240, 19 N.Y.3d 697 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The 'intent to commit a crime therein' element of burglary can be satisfied by the defendant's intent to commit an act that is only criminal because it violates a provision of an order of protection, so long as that provision is separate from the order's 'stay-away' provision.
Facts:
- After becoming physically abusive toward his paramour, Maria, defendant Norman Cajigas moved out of her apartment in October 2006.
- Cajigas then began stalking Maria, which escalated to a physical assault in November 2006.
- Following the assault, Maria obtained an order of protection that required Cajigas to stay away from her, her home, and her workplace, and to refrain from any contact with her.
- In April 2007, Cajigas violated the order by going to Maria's home, which resulted in a new order of protection being issued.
- After Maria moved to a new apartment in May 2007, Cajigas continued his conduct, confronting her at a hair salon and on the street in July.
- Several days later, while Maria’s daughter was home alone, Cajigas attempted to open the front door of their new apartment and tried to put something into the lock before fleeing.
Procedural Posture:
- Defendant Norman Cajigas was indicted in Supreme Court (the trial court) for attempted burglary in the second degree and criminal contempt in the first degree.
- At trial, the jury convicted Cajigas on all counts.
- Cajigas, as appellant, appealed the conviction to the Appellate Division, First Department.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- A Judge of the Court of Appeals (the state's highest court) granted Cajigas leave to appeal.
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's intent to violate a 'no-contact' or other provision of an order of protection, after unlawfully entering a dwelling, satisfy the 'intent to commit a crime therein' element required for a burglary conviction?
Opinions:
Majority - Graffeo, J.
Yes. The intent to violate a provision of an order of protection, other than the 'stay away' provision that establishes the unlawful entry, satisfies the 'intent to commit a crime therein' element for a burglary conviction. Burglary requires an unlawful entry coupled with the intent to commit a crime inside. While precedent from People v. Lewis holds that the same act of violating a 'stay away' order cannot satisfy both the unlawful entry element and the intent element, the intent to violate a different provision of the order (such as a 'no contact' provision) can serve as the predicate crime. The fact that the intended act, such as communication, would be legal but for the order of protection is irrelevant, as the order itself renders the act a crime (criminal contempt). This interpretation is consistent with the legislative intent to deter domestic violence and stalking with serious penal consequences.
Analysis:
This decision resolves a split among New York's appellate divisions, establishing a clear rule for burglary charges in domestic violence cases involving orders of protection. By allowing the intent to commit criminal contempt (by violating a non-stay-away provision) to serve as the predicate for burglary, the court significantly strengthens the legal force of such orders. This ruling gives prosecutors a powerful tool to charge defendants who escalate their behavior with a serious violent felony, rather than just a misdemeanor contempt charge, reflecting the often terrorizing and dangerous nature of such conduct. The decision reinforces that any act made criminal by a court order can form the intent element for burglary, broadening the statute's application in this context.
