784 S.E.2d 310
Va. Ct. App.2016Background
- Victim Colleen Shook converted three bedrooms of her single-family home into a self-contained apartment (kitchen, entrance) that she rented to Beck and his mother.
- The apartment connected to the Shooks’ living quarters only through a utility/laundry room and attached garage; the utility-room door to Shooks’ living quarters was normally kept closed.
- Shook testified Beck had no permission to enter her side of the house (though he had permission to use the apartment’s utility room and sometimes the garage).
- Two guitars and jewelry were later discovered missing from the Shooks’ living quarters; Beck pawned one guitar and admitted pawning it but claimed he had permission.
- At a bench trial Beck was convicted of statutory burglary (Code § 18.2-91) based on the trial court’s finding that the apartment and Shooks’ living quarters were separate dwellings sharing common areas and that Beck committed a breaking to enter Shook’s side.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Beck) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the structure portions constituted separate dwellings such that entry into Shook’s living quarters was entry into a dwelling (not merely within the same dwelling) | The apartment was a separate dwelling; the garage and utility room were common areas between units, so entering Shook’s living quarters from the common area was burglary | The apartment, utility room, and garage remained parts of one dwelling; at most Beck broke within the same dwelling, so burglary not proven | Court held evidence sufficient to find the apartment and Shooks’ living quarters were separate dwellings and common areas existed between them; burglary established |
| Whether the Commonwealth proved the breaking/entry element (and time-of-day) required for statutory burglary | Showed a breaking: the utility-room door into Shook’s living quarters was closed and Beck opened it; the Commonwealth conceded time-of-day was not proved, so it relied on breaking | Argued garage could have been open (no breaking) and time-of-day was not established; therefore statutory burglary not proven | Court accepted Commonwealth’s concession that time-of-day was not proved but held the evidence supported a breaking (opening the closed door), satisfying the statutory burglary elements under Code § 18.2-90/91 |
Key Cases Cited
- Hitt v. Commonwealth, 43 Va. App. 473 (discusses that burglary requires entry into a dwelling, not merely within it)
- Lacey v. Commonwealth, 54 Va. App. 32 (attached garage may be part of dwelling depending on facts)
- Grimes v. Commonwealth, 288 Va. 314 (structural parts integral to house may fall within meaning of "dwelling house")
- Finney v. Commonwealth, 277 Va. 83 (defining "breaking" as any slight application of force to gain entrance contrary to occupier's will)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for appellate review of sufficiency: evidence viewed in light most favorable to prosecution)