Lexplug logoLexplug

State v. Colvin

Supreme Court of Minnesota
645 N.W.2d 449, 2002 WL 1291802, 2002 Minn. LEXIS 397 (2002)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The act of entering a building in violation of a no-entry provision of an order for protection cannot, by itself, satisfy both the 'unlawful entry' element and the 'intent to commit a crime' element of the burglary statute. To sustain a burglary conviction, the state must prove the defendant intended to commit a crime separate and independent from the unlawful entry.


Facts:

  • Michelle Colvin obtained an Order for Protection (OFP) against her ex-husband, Peter Allen Colvin, which was served on him.
  • The OFP prohibited Colvin from entering Michelle Colvin's residence, having any contact with her, or committing acts of domestic abuse.
  • On February 25, 1999, a teenager staying at Michelle Colvin's home found Peter Colvin inside the residence watching television and drinking a beer.
  • The teenager asked Colvin to leave, and he complied without incident.
  • Police found no sign of forced entry but noted a window that would not lock had its blinds disturbed.
  • The parties stipulated that there was no allegation that Colvin committed or attempted to commit any crime other than violating the OFP by his presence in the home.

Procedural Posture:

  • The State charged Peter Colvin in district court (trial court) with first-degree burglary and felony violation of an OFP.
  • Colvin filed a motion to dismiss the burglary charge, arguing that the OFP violation could not be the predicate crime for burglary.
  • The district court denied Colvin's motion.
  • Pursuant to a plea agreement, the OFP charge was dismissed and the burglary charge was submitted to the district court on stipulated facts.
  • The district court found Colvin guilty of first-degree burglary.
  • Colvin, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
  • The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, holding the OFP violation could serve as the predicate crime for burglary.
  • Colvin, as appellant, appealed to the Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Locked

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 violation of a no-entry provision in an order for protection, absent any intent to commit another crime, satisfy the 'intent to commit a crime' element required for a first-degree burglary conviction?


Opinions:

Majority - Lancaster, Justice.

No. A defendant's violation of a no-entry provision in an order for protection does not satisfy the 'intent to commit a crime' element of burglary. The court extended its reasoning from State v. Larson, which held that a mere trespass cannot be the predicate crime for burglary because doing so would merge the statute's two distinct elements. Similarly, violating a no-entry provision of an OFP is legally analogous to trespass for this purpose; the act of unauthorized entry is complete at the moment of entry. Allowing this same act to fulfill both the entry element and the intent element would render the intent requirement meaningless. To secure a burglary conviction, the state must prove the defendant intended to commit an independent crime, such as violating other provisions of the OFP like those prohibiting assault or contact.


Dissenting - Russell A. Anderson, Justice

Yes. A defendant's violation of an order for protection can satisfy the 'intent to commit a crime' element of burglary. The majority incorrectly equates violating an OFP with a mere trespass. An OFP violation is a crime against a person, issued by a court based on a history of abuse, whereas trespass is a crime against property. The district court found Colvin intended to violate the OFP, not merely to enter the building. Given Colvin's history of domestic violence, it is a reasonable inference that his intent upon entering was to make contact or cause fear, thereby violating substantive provisions of the order. The majority's holding creates an unworkable standard by requiring prosecutors to parse which specific provision of an OFP an intruder intended to violate upon entry, ignoring the broader criminal intent to violate the court's order as a whole.



Analysis:

This decision significantly clarifies the application of burglary statutes in domestic violence cases involving protective orders. It solidifies the principle that burglary requires two distinct elements—unlawful entry and a separate criminal intent—and prevents prosecutors from collapsing them into a single act. The ruling heightens the evidentiary burden on the state, requiring proof of intent to commit a further crime beyond the entry itself, such as assault, harassment, or a violation of a no-contact provision. This precedent forces a clearer distinction between the serious felony of burglary and the separate offense of violating a protective order, ensuring that burglary charges are reserved for situations involving an intent to commit additional harm.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query State v. Colvin (2002) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for State v. Colvin