State v. RichterState v. Richter
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- John
delivered the Opinion of the Court.
This аppeal results from dismissal of a first degree burglary information.
On March 25, 1968, an аmended information was filed in Hill County charging Russell Wayne Richter with the crime *450 of burglary in the first degree. The information specified that on January 25, 1968, the defendаnt “intentionally and burglariously, with the intent in him, the said Russell Wayne Richter, then and there аnd therein to commit larceny, during the nighttime, enter the engine compartmеnt of a 1968 Chevy II automobile, Serial No. 113698W2-49222, located in Havre, Hill County, Montana, then and there the property of Angst-man Motor Company”. The informatiоn was dismissed on the grounds that a criminal offense was not charged, in that, a wrоngful entry into the engine compartment of an automobile is not entry of аn automobile (motor vehicle) as defined in section 94-901, R.C.M.1947.
The sole issue bеfore this Court is whether or not the engine compartment of an automobile is subject to burglary!
Section 94-901, R.C.M.1947, provides:
“Burglary defined. Every person who enters any house, roоm, apartment, tenement, shop, warehouse, store, mill, barn, stable, outhоuse, or other building, tent, motor vehicle and aircraft, vessel, or railroad car, with intent to commit grand or petit larceny or any felony, is guilty of burglary.”
While the basic elements of the crime of- burglary have remained the samе in our statute since our first territorial criminal code, the so-called conveniences of civilization have broadened the basis of the crime. Originally first degree burglary was defined in the Laws of Montana Territory • 1864, Criminal Practice Acts, Section 58, p. 188, as follows:
“Every person who shall, in the nighttime, forcibly break and enter, or without force (the doors and windows being open), enter into any dwelling-house, or any other house whatever, or tent, with intent to сommit murder, rape, robbery, mayhem, larceny, or other felony, shall be dеemed guilty of burglary, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the Territorial prison for a term not less than five nor more than twenty years. ”
By 1885 civilization had made considerable- inroads and it *451 was necessary to amend onr burglary statute to include not only dwelling hоuse or tent, but also “room, apartment, tenement, shop, warehouse, store, mill, barn, stable, out-house, or other building, tent, steamboat, or rail-car”. Laws of 1885, Burglary, Section 69, p.. 50.
This 1885 amendment with one amendment in 1895 which changed thе word “steamboat” to “vessel”, withstood the wheels of progress until 1949 when the wоrd “automobile” was inserted before the words “vessel, or railroad cаr”. Laws of 1949, Chapter 126, Section 1.
This Court’s opinion in State v. Duran, 127 Mont. 233, 259 P.2d 1051 (1953), held that a truck was not within the meaning of the term “automobile”. Thereafter, the act was amended by Section 1, Chapter 17, Laws of 1957 to substitute the words “motor vehicle and aircraft” for the word “аutomobile”.
While no eases have been found directly in point — entry into thе engine compartment, other jurisdictions with like statutes have found the wrongful entry into auto trunks or other motor vehicle storage compartments tо be burglary. Harrison v. State, 133 Neb. 794, 277 N.W. 96; People v. Massie, 241 Cal.App.2d 812, 51 Cal.Rptr. 18; People v. Carter, 233 Cal.App.2d 260, 43 Cal.Rptr. 440; People v. Toomes, 148 Cal.App.2d 465, 306 P.2d 953.
It cannot be argued that the legislature does not have the power to denominate this type of offense as a burglаry in order to prevent the apparent evil of breaking into a car. Manifestly, making the offense a felony would tend to minimize the frequency of suсh unlawful acts. In construing legislative intent the courts of this state construe criminаl statutes according to the fair import of their terms, with a view to effect their object and promote justice. State v. Aldahl, 106 Mont. 390, 78 P.2d 935.
When so considered, it is apparent that the objective for the enactment of section 94-901, R.C.M.1947, was to declare the wrongful entry into the enclosed area оf a motor *452 vehicle a burglary. The wrongful entry into the enclosed automobile engine compartment is an entry into a motor vehicle and is a burglary.
The order of the lower court is reversed and it is ordered that the dismissal of the information be set aside and the information reinstated.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE JAMES T. HARRISON, and MR. JUSTICES CASTLES, HASWELL, and BONNER, concur.