Wallace v. State
63 Md.App. 399, 1985 Md. App. LEXIS 416, 492 A.2d 970 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A building ceases to be a "dwelling house" for the purposes of burglary-related statutes once the last occupant has permanently moved out with no intention of returning. A residential property that is vacant between tenants does not qualify as a dwelling house.
Facts:
- Irving Greenberg owned a two-story home at 4703 Homer Avenue, which he leased to the Johnson family on a week-to-week basis.
- On August 6, 1983, Mrs. Johnson informed Greenberg by telephone that her family had permanently moved out of the home earlier that week.
- Immediately after the call, Greenberg went to the property and discovered that it had been forcibly entered, with the front door ajar and the rear door forced open.
- Inside the home, various fixtures had been removed, including a cabinet sink, plumbing, light fixtures, a toilet seat, a wash basin, and a medicine cabinet.
- Witnesses had seen Lorenzo Wallace, an occasional co-worker of one of the former tenants, in the alley next to the property carrying items similar to those stolen, such as a toilet seat top and metal pipes.
- Greenberg testified that he had not given Wallace permission to enter the premises.
Procedural Posture:
- Lorenzo Wallace was charged with daytime housebreaking, breaking and entering a dwelling house, and theft.
- The case was tried in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, which is a trial court.
- Following a court trial (bench trial), the judge convicted Wallace on all counts.
- Wallace, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to this intermediate appellate court, contending the evidence was insufficient to prove the building was a 'dwelling house'.
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 residential property qualify as a "dwelling house" for the crime of daytime housebreaking if the previous tenants have permanently vacated the premises and no new tenants have yet moved in?
Opinions:
Majority - Bishop, Judge.
No. A residential property does not qualify as a 'dwelling house' for the purposes of daytime housebreaking once its occupants have permanently vacated with no intention of returning. The court reasoned that burglary statutes are derived from the common law purpose of protecting human habitation. The legal test for a dwelling house is whether it is regularly used as a place to sleep. While a dwelling retains its character if its occupants are temporarily absent with an intent to return, it loses this status once the last dweller moves out permanently. Because the Johnson family had permanently abandoned the residence and the owner had no intention of living there, the structure was not a 'dwelling house' at the time of the breaking, and therefore Wallace's convictions for daytime housebreaking and breaking and entering a dwelling house cannot stand.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the legal definition of a "dwelling house" under Maryland's burglary and housebreaking statutes, emphasizing the element of human habitation. It establishes a clear precedent that a vacant rental property between tenancies does not qualify as a dwelling, thereby narrowing the scope of these more serious offenses. The ruling forces prosecutors to prove the specific character of the building at the time of the offense and may lead them to charge lesser offenses, such as breaking into a storehouse, in factually similar cases. This maintains a crucial legal distinction between invading an occupied home and trespassing in an empty building.
