Case Name: PEOPLE v. BURROWS
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1976-12-10
Citations: 73 Mich. App. 51
Docket Number: Docket No. 26362
Parties: PEOPLE v BURROWS
Judges: Before: Bashara, P. J., and M. F. Cavanagh and D. T. Anderson, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 73
Pages: 51–57

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v BURROWS
Opinion of the Court
1. Criminal Law — Breaking and Entering — Larceny—Automobiles — Felonious Conduct — Intent to Steal — Damage to Motor Vehicle.
The criminal statute covering the breaking and entering of a motor vehicle makes the breaking and entering of a motor vehicle a felony if (1) it is done with the intent to steal property of more than $5 in value, or (2) the person in the course of removing the goods or property damages any part of the motor vehicle.
Dissent by D. T. Anderson, J.
2. Criminal Law — Breaking and Entering — Automobiles—Damage to Motor Vehicle.
There is no violation of that portion of a statute concerning breaking and entering of a motor vehicle which requires that there be some damage to the vehicle where the damage occurs añer the breaking or entering is accomplished, because that portion of the statute requires that the element of damage must occur during the breaking or entering into the motor vehicle (MCLA 750.356a; MSA 28.588[1]).
3. Criminal Law — Breaking and Entering — Automobiles—Elements of Crime — Statutes.
The elements of the crime of breaking and entering a motor vehicle for the purpose of stealing therefrom any goods regardless of the value thereof are (1) a breaking or entering in a motor vehicle, (2) a breaking, tearing, cutting or otherwise damaging of the motor vehicle in so breaking or entering, and (3) the speciSc intent, at the time of breaking or entering, of stealing or unlawfully removing from the motor vehicle any goods, chattels or property regardless of the value thereof (MCLA 750.356a; MSA 28.588[1]).
References for Points in Headnotes
13 Am Jur 2d, Burglary § 7.
Burglary or breaking and entering of motor vehicle. 79 ALR2d 286.
13 Am Jur 2d, Burglary §8 et seq.
4. Criminal Law — Breaking and Entering — Entry—Enclosed Areas.
The least entry with the whole or any part of the body, hand or foot into an enclosed area constitutes an entering for purposes of a breaking and entering crime.
Appeal from Lapeer, Martin E. Clements, J.
Submitted July 6, 1976, at Lansing.
(Docket No. 26362.)
Decided December 10, 1976.
Clarence Burrows, Jr., was convicted of breaking and entering a motor vehicle. Defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, Edward B. Meth, Prosecuting Attorney, and Earl H. Morgan, Jr., Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Morrice & Lengemann, for defendant.
Before: Bashara, P. J., and M. F. Cavanagh and D. T. Anderson, JJ.
Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.

Opinion:
M. F. Cavanagh, J.
We adopt the facts from Judge Anderson's dissent. However, we cannot agree with his conclusions as to the law. By 1939 PA 254 and 1947 PA 124, the Legislature successively broadened the scope of the statute's coverage (MCLA 750.356a; MSA 28.588[1]). It was the intent of the Legislature to punish the breaking and entering of a motor vehicle with the purpose to steal. The Legislature determined that such conduct would be felonious if (1) the intent is to steal property of more than $5 in value (first clause), or (2) the person in the course of removing the goods or property damages any part of the motor vehicle (second clause).
The Legislature intended that the presence of either of these elements bring the conduct within the purview of this statute. The dissenting opinion would essentially redraft the statute to forbid only breaking into the vehicle with intent to steal. To do so gives greater weight to the Legislature's grammatical imprecision than to its intent. We would attach the greater significance to the legislative intent. See Posselius v First National Bank-Detroit, 264 Mich 687, 689; 251 NW 429, 430 (1933).
Affirmed.
Bashara, P. J., concurred.