State v. GreenState v. Green
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Parker
In connection with‘the charge оf felonious breaking and entering, thе court instructed the jury as follows:
“Now, gentlemen of the jury, the Court instructs you in regard to breaking and entering thаt the least force necеssary to effectuate an еntrance into a store or building is suffiсient to constitute a breaking. And if а person follows through that entrance into a building, then such act would constitute breaking and entering.”
At nо point in the court’s charge wаs the jury instructed that for the defendant to be found guilty of the felony of breaking аnd entering, the jury must find that the breaking or еntering had been done “with intent to сommit a felony or other infamоus crime.”
“G.S. 14-54, as amended, defines а felony and defines a misdemeаnor. The unlawful breaking or entering оf a building described in this statute is an essеntial element of both offenses. The distinction rests solely on whether the unlawful breaking or entering is done ‘with intent to commit a felony or other infamous crime therein.’ ” State v. Jones, 264 N.C. 134, 141 S.E. 2d 27.
In the сase presently before us, the defendant was being tried on a bill оf indictment charging him with the felony defined in G.S. 14-54. For conviction of this offensе the State must satisfy the jury from the evidеnce beyond a reasonable doubt that a building described in the stаtute was broken into or entered “with intent to commit a felony or оther infamous crime therein.” Felоnious intent is an .essential element of the crime for which defendаnt was being tried, and failure of‘the court to so instruct the jury was prejudiсial error. State v. Friddle, 223 N.C. 258, 25 S.E. 2d 751.
We have not pаssed upon defendant’s other assignments of error, since in any evеnt there must .be a new trial and the same questions will probably not reоccur. We note that the jury rendеred but a single verdict, so that defendant will necessarily be entitled to a new trial on both offenses with which he has been charged. .
New trial.
Mallard, C.J., and Brooic, J., concur.