State v. Falls
508 So. 2d 1021 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For the crime of unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling, an "entry" occurs when any part of the defendant's person passes the line of the threshold or intrudes, even momentarily, into the structure without authorization.
Facts:
- On July 5, 1986, Amy Roepcke, a resident of Sunwood Apartments, was walking her cat near the complex pool when Frank M. Falls approached her and attempted to converse, despite her negative replies.
- Roepcke headed towards her ground-floor apartment, but Falls followed her, told her he loved her, and grabbed her arm when she questioned his meaning of love.
- Frightened, Roepcke ran to her apartment, locked the door, and closed the drapes, and shortly after, she observed the door handle turn twice.
- After waiting, Roepcke left her apartment to get her mail, but Falls approached her again as she returned.
- Roepcke ran to her apartment door, but Falls was right behind her and placed his foot in the doorway to prevent her from closing it, then moved his body partially inside her apartment without her permission.
- Roepcke screamed for help, causing Falls to move back and allowing her to shut the door.
- Later, Sharon Coulon, the apartment manager, and the security guard located Falls in front of Roepcke's apartment, leaning his ear against her door and turning the door handle.
Procedural Posture:
- Frank M. Falls was charged by bill of information with the unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling in violation of L.S.A.-R.S. 14:62.3.
- Falls entered a plea of not guilty.
- A jury found Falls guilty as charged.
- The trial court sentenced Falls on December 11, 1986, to three years in parish prison with credit for time served.
- Falls, as the appellant, appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit, challenging the sufficiency of evidence, the denial of a motion for mistrial, alleged errors patent, and the excessiveness of his sentence.
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 placing a foot and part of one's body inside an inhabited dwelling's doorway without the resident's permission constitute an "entry" for the crime of unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling under L.S.A.-R.S. 14:62.3?
Opinions:
Majority - Wicker, J.
Yes, placing a foot and part of one's body inside an inhabited dwelling's doorway without permission constitutes an "entry" for the crime of unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling. The court reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence under the standard of Jackson v. Virginia, finding that a rational trier of fact could have found Falls guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, as the jury evidently found Roepcke to be the more credible witness regarding Falls' physical intrusion. The court noted that the term "unauthorized entry" is used consistently in related Louisiana burglary statutes (L.S.A.-R.S. 14:62.2 for simple burglary of an inhabited dwelling and L.S.A.-R.S. 14:62.3 for unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling), indicating legislative intent for a uniform meaning. Citing State Ex Rel. Womack v. Blackburn, which held that a "sprung latch" established unauthorized entry, and referencing jurisprudence from other jurisdictions and legal treatises, the court affirmed that "entry" is defined as occurring whenever "any part of the defendant's person passes the line of the threshold" or "intrudes, even momentarily, into the structure." Therefore, Falls' actions were sufficient to meet the element of entry. The court also found no substantial prejudice from an erroneous statement made by the prosecutor during opening remarks, as the trial judge issued an admonition and the evidence clearly established the facts. Finally, the court concluded that Falls' three-year sentence was not excessive given his prior manslaughter conviction and the nature of the current offense, and that the trial judge sufficiently considered sentencing guidelines under L.S.A.-C.Cr.Proc. Art. 894.1.
Analysis:
This case provides a crucial interpretation of the term "entry" for burglary-related offenses in Louisiana, establishing a broad definition that includes any physical intrusion, however slight or momentary. This clarifies the scope of L.S.A.-R.S. 14:62.3 and similar statutes, making it easier to secure convictions for individuals who attempt to gain unauthorized access to dwellings without fully entering. The decision also reinforces appellate deference to jury credibility determinations and trial court sentencing discretion, emphasizing that appellate courts will not second-guess such findings unless there is a manifest abuse of discretion or a lack of supporting evidence in the record.
