State v. Marc A. Olivero (073364)
115 A.3d 1270
| N.J. | 2015Background
- Domino Manufacturing operated a fenced, locked lot adjacent to its warehouse used to store heavy printing equipment (metal shafts and rollers) that could not be kept inside the building.
- Early morning police discovered Marc Olivero and another person leaving the lot in a pickup truck containing bolt cutters, the padlock from the gate, and eleven metal printing rollers owned by Domino.
- Olivero was charged with third-degree burglary (N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2) and a burglary-tool offense; he was tried on the burglary charge, convicted, and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment.
- At trial Olivero moved for acquittal arguing the lot was merely a parking area and not a “structure” under the burglary statute; the trial court denied the motion and the Appellate Division affirmed.
- The New Jersey Supreme Court granted certification to decide whether a fenced, secured storage lot used in a business constitutes a “structure” under N.J.S.A. 2C:18-1 and 2C:18-2.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Olivero's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a fenced, locked lot used to store business equipment qualifies as a "structure" under N.J.S.A. 2C:18-1 ("place adapted ... for carrying on business") | The burglary statute’s definition of "structure" includes places adapted for business; a secured storage lot used by a business is therefore a protected structure | A parking/storage lot is not a statute-defined "structure"; the lot is not within the plain meaning and penal statutes must be construed narrowly; L.E.W. (7‑11 parking lot) supports non‑coverage | The Court held such a fenced, secured lot may be a "structure" when it is specifically adapted for business use and secured from public access; affirmed conviction |
| Whether ambiguity in the penal statute requires applying the rule of lenity in Olivero’s favor | The statutory language and legislative history clarify the broadened scope; lenity does not apply because ambiguity is resolved | The statute is ambiguous and must be strictly construed; thus Olivero urged lenity | Court applied statutory construction, reviewed legislative history, and concluded ambiguity is resolved in favor of coverage, so lenity did not yield acquittal |
| Whether prior decisions holding public parking lots outside the statute (e.g., L.E.W.) control here | Distinguished: L.E.W. involved a lot open to the public; secured private lots are different | Argued L.E.W. supports that parking lots are not "structures" regardless of fencing | Court distinguished L.E.W. and found secured, business‑used lots unlike public invitee parking lots |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Hagan, 654 A.2d 541 (Pa. 1995) (state supreme court held a fenced and locked storage lot is a place adapted for carrying on business and thus an occupied structure)
- State v. Hill, 449 N.W.2d 626 (Iowa 1989) (Iowa Supreme Court upheld burglary conviction for theft from a fenced enclosure behind a business; storage area characterized as part of structure)
- State v. L.E.W., 239 N.J. Super. 65 (App. Div.) (1990) (parking lot open to the public held not to be a "structure" for trespass/defiant trespass purposes; distinguished on grounds of public access)
- State v. D.A., 191 N.J. 158 (2007) (discussed strict construction and rule of lenity in penal statutes)