People v. Dupree
1893 Mich. LEXIS 986, 98 Mich. 26, 56 N.W. 1046 (1893)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The element of "breaking" for burglary is satisfied when an individual further opens a window to gain felonious entry at night, even if that individual previously unfastened or slightly opened the window during the daytime to facilitate the later entry.
Facts:
- The owner of a building used the front room as a shoe shop and lived in the rear and upstairs portion.
- The shoe shop windows were secured by spring-loaded bolts that automatically engaged when the windows were fully closed.
- On October 6, the respondent was granted permission to enter the shoe shop alone to change his pants.
- The owner testified to his belief that the respondent, while inside the shop, raised a window just enough to prevent the spring bolt from engaging, thereby leaving it unlocked.
- During the night of October 8, this same window was found raised approximately 3.5 feet.
- Three pairs of shoes were stolen from the shop.
- Several days later, the respondent was found in possession of and sold a pair of shoes identified as being stolen during the incident.
Procedural Posture:
- The State prosecuted the respondent for burglary in a trial court.
- At trial, after the prosecution presented its case, the respondent's counsel moved to have the respondent discharged (a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal), arguing the crime was not established.
- The trial court denied the motion.
- The jury found the respondent guilty, and the trial court entered a judgment of conviction.
- The respondent appealed his conviction to the present appellate court, arguing that the elements of burglary were not proven.
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 further opening a window to enter a dwelling at night constitute a "breaking" for the purposes of burglary if the perpetrator had, during the daytime, unfastened the window or raised it slightly to prevent it from locking?
Opinions:
Majority - Grant, J.
Yes. Further opening a window to enter a dwelling at night constitutes a burglarious breaking, even if the perpetrator previously manipulated the window to prevent it from locking. The court reasoned that there is no meaningful legal distinction between lifting a window held down by its own weight and lifting one that was secretly unfastened by the perpetrator beforehand. The act of secretly disabling a lock or bolt in the daytime to make the subsequent crime easier does not negate the criminality of the forced entry at night. Citing Lyons v. People, the court affirmed that the carelessness of an owner in securing property is not a justification for burglary; the critical act is the opening of a closed door or window to effect a felonious entry at night.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of the "breaking" element in burglary, establishing that a defendant cannot circumvent the charge by engaging in preparatory acts that create the insecure condition they later exploit. It prevents a legal loophole where a defendant could argue that no 'breaking' occurred because they defeated the security mechanism at a time separate from the actual entry. The ruling reinforces the principle that any force, however slight, used to create an entry point at the time of the offense is sufficient, thereby broadening the protection afforded to dwellings regardless of the owner's diligence or the perpetrator's cunning.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Dupree