Perry v. State
1981 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 2529, 407 So. 2d 183 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish an 'entry' for burglary, there must be a penetration of the building's interior space by some part of the defendant's body or an instrument inserted for the purpose of committing a felony therein, and intent to commit a crime can be reasonably inferred from the nature of the building and the circumstances of the breaking and entering.
Facts:
- About 11:00 P.M. on December 6, 1980, Henry Moore observed an individual, identified as Howard Perry, prying at the front door locks of Nixon's Grocery Store, which was closed and locked.
- Moore testified that Perry was using a flat instrument, resembling a screwdriver, to jiggle the locks while appearing to converse with another person near the building.
- Moore promptly called law enforcement authorities to report what he had seen.
- Upon arrival, Officer M.A. Fontain observed that the hasps on the lock of Nixon's Grocery Store had been pried off, and inside the door, there were particles of wood and the hasp that came off the lock.
- Mrs. Nixon, the store proprietor, testified that she found nothing moved or missing from her store after the incident.
- Soon after his release on bond, Perry called Mrs. Nixon, stating, 'Ms. Nixon, I didn't do it, I didn't break into your place,' but then added, 'But I'm willing, if there is anything missing, I am willing to pay for it.'
Procedural Posture:
- A jury in the trial court found defendant Howard Perry guilty of burglary in the third degree.
- The trial court sentenced Perry to 10 years imprisonment.
- At the close of the State's case, Perry and his counsel made a motion to exclude the State's evidence, arguing that the State failed to prove a prima facie case for entry and specific intent to commit theft.
- The trial court overruled Perry's motion to exclude the evidence.
- Perry appealed the judgment of the trial court to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, asserting the same grounds as his motion to exclude evidence.
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 evidence showing a defendant pried open a locked door, causing parts of the locking mechanism and wood to fall inside, and then left the scene, constitute sufficient 'entry' and 'intent to commit theft' to sustain a conviction for burglary in the third degree?
Opinions:
Majority - Leigh M. Clark
Yes, the evidence was sufficient to establish both an 'entry' and an 'intent to commit theft' for a conviction of burglary in the third degree. The court acknowledged that under the Alabama Criminal Code, 'breaking' is no longer an essential element of burglary. While mere prying of a door with an instrument to gain entrance does not constitute entry, the critical distinction here is the displacement of parts of the locking mechanism and wood inside the building. The court reasoned that the circumstantial evidence—Perry prying the lock until it broke, followed by the discovery of the hasp and wood particles inside the door after it was opened by an officer, and the absence of any other person opening the door—constitutes substantial evidence that the door was indeed opened, causing some part of the locking apparatus and wood to move inside, implying a penetration of the interior space. The court deemed it less reasonable to assume these components moved inside without a penetration by some part of Perry's body or an instrument used to open the door. Regarding intent, the court found no suggestion of an alternative specific intention. Given that the building was a store, which a trespasser would ordinarily enter solely for theft, and considering the circumstances of the breaking and entering, a reasonable conclusion is that Perry intended to steal something therefrom. Therefore, no prejudicial error was found.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the elements of 'entry' and 'intent' for burglary under Alabama's revised Criminal Code, particularly in scenarios relying on circumstantial evidence. It establishes that actual physical penetration of a building's interior by a defendant's body part or an instrument used for the felony can be inferred from the displacement of building components (e.g., lock parts) from outside to inside the structure. The ruling also reinforces the principle that intent to commit a crime, specifically theft, can be reasonably inferred from the nature of the building targeted (e.g., a store) and the circumstances surrounding the forced entry, especially when no other lawful purpose is evident. This precedent provides guidance on how minimal but discernible physical alterations at an entry point can satisfy the 'entry' element, making it easier to prosecute burglaries where direct observation of full entry is absent.
