Stewart v. Commonwealth
1990 Ky. App. LEXIS 114, 793 S.W.2d 859, 1990 WL 118349 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A basement under the same roof as a house is considered part of the 'dwelling' for the purposes of a second-degree burglary statute if its use contributes materially to the comfort and convenience of the inhabitants, regardless of whether it has an internal entrance to the main living area.
Facts:
- Claude Hicks's residence included a basement that was located under the main house.
- The basement was not accessible from the interior of the house and could only be entered through a separate, locked exterior door.
- Hicks used the basement for a laundry room, a refrigerator, and a workshop.
- Sometime between April 28 and May 1, 1988, various tools and other items were stolen from Hicks's basement.
- Harry C. Stewart confessed to his ex-girlfriend, Rosemary Gent, that he had stolen the items from Hicks's residence.
- Gent also testified that she had seen the stolen items in Stewart's apartment.
Procedural Posture:
- Harry C. Stewart was arrested and charged with second-degree burglary.
- Stewart was tried in the Kenton Circuit Court (trial court).
- At trial, Stewart's counsel moved for a directed verdict of acquittal, arguing the basement was not a 'dwelling' under the statute.
- The trial court denied the motion for a directed verdict.
- A jury found Stewart guilty of second-degree burglary and of being a persistent felony offender.
- The Kenton Circuit Court entered a judgment sentencing Stewart to an enhanced term of ten years' imprisonment.
- Stewart (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Kentucky Court of Appeals.
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 basement, which is under the same roof as a house but accessible only through a separate exterior entrance, constitute part of the 'dwelling' for the purposes of a second-degree burglary statute?
Opinions:
Majority - Howerton, Chief Judge
Yes. A basement under the same roof as a house is considered part of the dwelling for burglary purposes if its use is functionally connected to the habitation. The court reasoned that the common law purpose of burglary is to protect the security of the habitation, which extends beyond the immediate living quarters to areas that contribute to the comfort and convenience of the occupants. Citing the precedent set in Mitchell v. Commonwealth, the court held that a cellar under the same roof is 'essentially part and parcel of the habitation,' even without an internal connection. Because Hicks used his basement for domestic purposes like laundry and a workshop, it was functionally an integral part of his dwelling, making unlawful entry into it second-degree burglary.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of the term 'dwelling' in Kentucky's burglary statute by adopting a functional use test over a purely structural one. It establishes that the lack of an internal connecting door does not prevent a space like a basement from being considered part of the dwelling if it is used for the 'comfort and convenience' of the home. This precedent strengthens the prosecution's ability to charge higher-degree burglary for intrusions into areas integral to the home but not directly connected to the living quarters, such as attached garages or basements, reinforcing the common law principle of protecting the entire habitation.
