State v. Cook
2010 Me. LEXIS 89, 2010 ME 85, 2 A.3d 333 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An enclosed space underneath a building, such as a crawlspace secured by skirting or lattice, qualifies as part of the 'structure' for the purposes of a burglary statute if it is designed to provide protection for property against weather or intrusion.
Facts:
- In November and December of 2006, Daniel O. Cook, along with his father, nephew, and a friend, engaged in a series of burglaries of seasonal camps in Dedham.
- The group's purpose was to steal copper pipe from the camps to sell for scrap metal.
- For the burglaries at the Zimmerman and Delucia camps, Cook's accomplices gained access by crawling into the space underneath the camps.
- These under-camp spaces were enclosed and secured against the weather by skirting or latticework.
- To gain access to one camp's pipes, the latticework enclosing the space underneath was cut.
- Daniel O. Cook assisted in the Zimmerman and Delucia burglaries by acting as the getaway driver for his accomplices.
- After law enforcement inquired about a member of the group, Cook and his father dumped stolen property from various burglaries into a culvert.
- A Bose stereo stolen from another camp was seen in a common area of the residence where Cook lived with the other perpetrators.
Procedural Posture:
- A grand jury indicted Daniel O. Cook on thirty-two counts of burglary, theft, and other offenses in the Superior Court (Hancock County, Maine), a state trial court.
- The State joined Cook's case for trial with that of his co-defendant and father, David Cook.
- At the close of the State's case at trial, Cook's motion for a judgment of acquittal based on insufficient evidence was denied by the court.
- The jury returned a guilty verdict on twenty-five of the thirty-two counts.
- The trial court entered a judgment of conviction and sentenced Cook.
- Cook (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court (the state's highest court), arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions.
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 enclosed space underneath a camp, secured by skirting or lattice to protect it from weather, constitute part of the 'structure' for the purposes of the Maine burglary statute?
Opinions:
Majority - Gorman, J.
Yes. An enclosed space under a building constitutes part of the 'structure' for burglary if it is designed to protect property against weather or intrusion. The court reasoned that the burglary statute defines a 'structure' not only as a building but also as any 'place designed to provide protection for persons or property against weather or intrusion.' Because testimony established that the spaces under the Zimmerman and Delucia camps were enclosed with skirting and lattice to protect the area from weather, those spaces are part of the structure. Therefore, the unauthorized entry into them with intent to commit a crime constitutes burglary, and Cook's conviction as an accomplice was upheld. However, the court vacated other convictions for theft and criminal mischief where the evidence was insufficient, reasoning that the mere presence of a stolen item in a shared residence does not prove an individual's 'control' over it, and possession of stolen goods alone is too tenuous to prove that an individual personally caused damage at the scene of the crime.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and expands the legal definition of a 'structure' within Maine's burglary statute, establishing that non-traditional, uninhabitable, but secured areas like crawlspaces are protected. This precedent makes it easier for the state to prosecute individuals who enter such areas with criminal intent, treating the intrusion as seriously as an entry into the main building. The ruling also reinforces the requirement for specific, direct evidence of a defendant's involvement in a particular crime, holding that general participation in a criminal spree or association with stolen goods is not, by itself, sufficient to convict for every related offense.
