Lexplug logoLexplug

Stowell v. People

Supreme Court of Colorado
104 Colo. 255, 90 P.2d 520, 1939 Colo. LEXIS 278 (1939)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An individual who has a legal right to enter a premises cannot be guilty of burglary, as a rightful entry negates the essential element of a 'breaking,' even if the entry is made with felonious intent.


Facts:

  • The defendant was a freight conductor employed by the Rock Island railway.
  • The railway company furnished the defendant with a 'switch key' for use in his work.
  • The key opened all switches and all depot and freight room doors on his division.
  • There were no regulations governing the use of the key.
  • Using this key, the defendant entered the company’s freight warehouse at Genoa.
  • After entering the warehouse, he took two parcels, a carton of meat and an automobile battery, with a total value of $10.
  • The defendant was then arrested by officers who had surrounded the warehouse.

Procedural Posture:

  • The defendant was charged by information in the trial court with burglary with force.
  • At the conclusion of the trial, the defendant moved for a directed verdict, which the court denied.
  • A jury found the defendant guilty of burglary.
  • The trial court sentenced the defendant to a term of three to seven years in the penitentiary.
  • The defendant prosecuted a writ of error to the state's highest court to review the judgment.

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 person commit burglary by forcibly breaking and entering when they use a key, lawfully provided by their employer, to enter a company warehouse with the intent to steal?


Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Justice Burke

No. A person who has a right to enter a building does not commit burglary, even if they enter with the intent to commit a felony, because there is no unlawful 'breaking.' The defendant had a right to enter the warehouse at that time and in that manner for a lawful purpose, and his unlawful intent alone is insufficient to transform a rightful entry into a burglary. The court cited the established principle that 'there is no burglary, if the person entering has a right so to do, although he may intend to commit, and may actually commit, a felony.' The prosecution's own evidence established the defendant's lawful possession of the key and his right of entry. Therefore, the evidence could only support a conviction for petit larceny, not burglary. The court also noted that statutes expanding the common law crime of burglary must be strictly construed and not extended beyond the clear intent of the legislature.



Analysis:

This decision reinforces the traditional distinction between burglary and larceny by focusing on the character of the entry itself, rather than solely on the defendant's intent. It establishes that if an individual has general authority to enter a premises, such as an employee with a key, the entry is not a 'breaking,' even if it is for a criminal purpose. This precedent requires prosecutors in similar cases to prove not only criminal intent but also that the entry itself was unauthorized or exceeded the scope of consent in a way that constitutes a constructive breaking. The ruling prevents the expansion of the felony of burglary to cover situations that are substantively theft committed by a person with privileged access.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Stowell v. People (1939) 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 Stowell v. People