People v. King
61 N.Y.2d 550, 475 N.Y.S.2d 260, 463 N.E.2d 601 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For the crime of burglary, the 'entry' element is satisfied when any part of a person's body intrudes into the premises. Additionally, an enclosed and securable storefront vestibule is considered part of the 'building' under the Penal Law.
Facts:
- At approximately 4:30 a.m., two plain-clothes police officers observed the defendant in front of a jewelry store.
- The store's entrance was a vestibule, recessed 15 feet from the sidewalk, enclosed by display windows, a roof, and a metal security gate at the sidewalk line.
- The officers saw the defendant crouched down, making pulling and pushing motions on the security gate.
- Upon investigation, the officers discovered a one-foot-square hole had been cut in the metal gate, with several metal bars from the gate found inside the vestibule.
- When the defendant was apprehended after a short chase, a search revealed a claw hammer in his coat pocket.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was tried before a jury.
- The jury convicted the defendant of attempted burglary in the third degree and possession of burglar's tools.
- The defendant (appellant) appealed the conviction to the Appellate Division (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The defendant (appellant) then appealed to the Court of Appeals of New York (the state's highest court).
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 the slight intrusion of any part of a person's body into a store's enclosed and gated vestibule constitute an 'entry' into a 'building' for the purposes of an attempted burglary charge under the New York Penal Law?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Cooke
Yes. The slight intrusion of any part of a person's body into a store's enclosed and gated vestibule constitutes an 'entry' into a 'building' for the purposes of an attempted burglary charge. The court reasoned that although the current Penal Law does not define 'entry,' it does not explicitly depart from the common-law definition, which held that the insertion of any part of the body into the premises was sufficient. The court presumes the Legislature did not intend to change this established common-law rule without clear and explicit language. Furthermore, the vestibule is considered part of the 'building' because the security gate makes it functionally indistinguishable from the rest of the store, as it can be completely enclosed from public access and is used for carrying on business.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies two key elements of the modern burglary statute in New York by reaffirming long-standing common law principles. By holding that any bodily intrusion, however slight, constitutes an 'entry,' the court prevents a defense based on the physical impossibility of the defendant's entire body fitting through an opening. Additionally, the ruling broadens the functional definition of a 'building' to include securable, semi-public spaces like vestibules, reflecting the realities of modern commercial architecture and enhancing protection for such properties. This interpretation provides a clear, bright-line rule for prosecutors in future burglary cases involving partial entry or entry into ancillary structures.
