State v. Bowen
1997 Kan. LEXIS 118, 942 P.2d 7, 262 Kan. 705 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To sustain a conviction for aggravated burglary, the State must prove the defendant entered a structure with the specific intent to commit a felony therein; possession of a controlled substance that is merely incidental to the unauthorized entry and not the purpose for it is insufficient to establish the requisite intent.
Facts:
- During the early morning hours of December 7, 1994, Travis W. Bowen was under the influence of methamphetamine.
- Feeling cold while walking on an icy night, Bowen kicked in the door of the rural home of Layne and Ruth White in order to get warm.
- Before entering the home, Bowen took out his pocket knife for protection.
- After entering, Bowen went to the kitchen and armed himself with a larger butcher knife from the home.
- Bowen later stated to an officer that he had the knife ready before entering and would have to 'cut' anyone who approached him to defend himself.
- The Whites, who were asleep upstairs, were awakened by the noise, hid, and called for help.
- When police arrived, they found Bowen on his knees with a knife in each hand.
- Upon his arrest, police discovered methamphetamine and marijuana on Bowen's person.
Procedural Posture:
- Travis W. Bowen was tried by a jury in a Kansas state trial court.
- The jury convicted Bowen of aggravated burglary, possession of methamphetamine, and possession of marijuana.
- On a special verdict form for the aggravated burglary count, the jury indicated it found Bowen guilty based on two alternative intents: possession of methamphetamine and aggravated assault.
- The trial court sentenced Bowen to a controlling term of 41 months' imprisonment.
- Bowen (appellant) appealed his aggravated burglary conviction to the Supreme Court of Kansas, arguing the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction.
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 possession of a controlled substance at the time of an unauthorized entry into a dwelling, when that possession is wholly incidental to the entry, satisfy the 'intent to commit a felony therein' element required for an aggravated burglary conviction?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice McFarland
No. The mere incidental possession of a controlled substance upon unauthorized entry does not satisfy the 'intent to commit a felony therein' element of aggravated burglary. The court reasoned that for aggravated burglary, the intent to commit the underlying felony must be the purpose of, or at least concurrent with, the unauthorized entry. In this case, Bowen's possession of methamphetamine was 'wholly incidental' to his entry; he entered the home to get warm, not with the purpose of possessing drugs inside. The court distinguished cases involving continuing offenses for venue purposes, stating they are inapplicable to the specific intent requirement for burglary. However, the court found there was sufficient evidence that Bowen entered with the intent to commit a different felony: aggravated assault. Evidence for this intent included his statement that he armed himself before entering and was prepared to 'cut' any occupant who approached him, and his action of acquiring a larger weapon once inside. Because the jury's special verdict form explicitly found Bowen guilty based on intent to commit aggravated assault (a legally sufficient basis) as well as possession of methamphetamine (an insufficient basis), the conviction was affirmed, as the state only needed to prove one of the alternative intents.
Analysis:
This decision refines the mens rea element for burglary by clarifying the relationship between the unauthorized entry and the intended felony. It establishes that a pre-existing status offense, like drug possession, cannot automatically serve as the predicate felony for a burglary charge if it is merely incidental to the entry. This prevents prosecutors from bootstrapping a lesser crime like trespass into a serious felony like burglary simply because the defendant happened to possess contraband. The ruling reinforces that the intent to commit the felony must be the goal of the entry itself, ensuring that the punishment for burglary is reserved for invasions of property that pose the specific, intended threat of a subsequent felony.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Bowen