Title: New Jersey v. Olivero
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 
State: new-jersey
Issuer: new-jersey Supreme Court
Date: June 28, 2015

New Jersey v. Olivero Annotate this Case Justia Opinion Summary Defendant was arrested at a locked, fenced-in parking lot used for storage by an adjoining warehouse operated by Domino Manufacturing. Domino Manufacturing used the lot to store equipment for printing presses, including metal shafts and printing rollers which were kept outside because they were too heavy to be moved inside the warehouse. Defendant was attempting to exit the main gate in a pick-up truck in which the police found bolt cutters, the padlock from the gate, and eleven metal printing rollers. Defendant was charged with third-degree burglary, and disorderly persons possession of a burglary tool. Defendant was tried only on the burglary charge; the charge under the disorderly persons statute was dismissed. At the close of the State's evidence at trial, defendant moved for acquittal on the ground that the State failed to meet its burden of proving that the premises that defendant entered was a "structure" as defined in N.J.S.A. 2C:18-1, contending that defendant entered a parking lot, which is not a "structure" within the statute. The trial court denied the motion, finding that the fenced-in area was a prohibited space not open to the public, as well as a place adapted for the conduct of Domino Manufacturing's business, and therefore it constituted a "structure." Defendant was convicted of third-degree burglary, and sentenced to five years in prison. He appealed, challenging the trial court's conclusion that the fenced-in parking lot was a "structure." Finding no error in the trial court's analysis, the Supreme Court agreed and affirmed. Read more Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of New Jersey? Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More › You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of New Jersey. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here .(NOTE: The status of this decision is .) SYLLABUS(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court. Please note that, in the interest of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized.) State v. Marc A. Olivero (A-83-13) (073364)Argued January 6, 2015 -- Decided June 29, 2015FERNANDEZ-VINA, J., writing for a unanimous Court. In this appeal, the Court considers whether a locked, fenced-in parking lot used for storage by an adjacent manufacturing facility constitutes a “structure” for the criminal offense of burglary under N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2. Defendant was arrested at a locked, fenced-in parking lot used for storage by an adjoining warehouse operated by Domino Manufacturing. The warehouse is enclosed by a fence with a locked gate. Domino Manufacturing uses the lot to store equipment for printing presses, including metal shafts and printing rollers which are kept outside because they are too heavy to be moved inside the warehouse. Defendant was attempting to exit the main gate in a pick-up truck in which the police found bolt cutters, the padlock from the gate, and eleven metal printing rollers. Defendant was charged with third-degree burglary under N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2, and disorderly persons possession of a burglary tool under N.J.S.A. 2C:5-5. Defendant was tried only on the burglary charge; the charge under the disorderly persons statute was dismissed. At the close of the State’s evidence at trial, defendant moved for acquittal on the ground that the State failed to meet its burden of proving that the premises that defendant entered was a “structure” as defined in N.J.S.A. 2C:18-1, contending that defendant entered a parking lot, which is not a “structure” within the statute. The trial court denied the motion, finding that the fenced-in area was a prohibited space not open to the public, as well as a place adapted for the conduct of Domino Manufacturing’s business, and therefore it constituted a “structure.” Defendant was convicted of third-degree burglary, and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of five years. On appeal, defendant challenged his conviction, contending that the evidence failed to establish that he entered a “structure” under the burglary statute. In an unpublished per curiam opinion, the Appellate Division affirmed defendant’s conviction and sentence. The Court granted defendant’s petition for certification. 217 N.J. 304 (2014).HELD: A fenced-in and locked lot is a “structure” within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2 when the lot is secured from the public and is used for business purposes. Here, when defendant entered the lot to remove metal rollers, he entered a “place … adapted for carrying on business,” as a “structure” is defined under the statute. Defendant’s conviction for third-degree burglary is affirmed.1. The meaning of “structure” within the burglary statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2, is an issue of statutory construction and therefore an interpretation of the law that can be decided by this Court without deference to the trial court’s determination. In determining statutory intent, courts must look first to the plain language of the statute, which is generally the best indicator of intent. Where the language of a statute clearly reveals its meaning, the sole function of the court is to enforce the statute in accordance with its terms. If the plain language of a statute is not clear, or if it is susceptible to more than one meaning, the Court may look to extrinsic evidence such as legislative history or the entire legislative scheme containing the statute to determine legislative intent. (pp. 7-9)2. The burglary statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2, is a penal statute which must therefore be strictly construed. In construing a penal statute, a court may still look to extrinsic evidence to clarify an ambiguity and determine legislative intent. The strict construction doctrine and its corollary, the doctrine of lenity, mean that words are given their ordinary meaning and that any reasonable doubt is decided in favor of defendant. The rule of lenity is not invoked simply because there are competing judicial interpretations of statutory language, but is applied only if a statute is ambiguous and that ambiguity is not resolved by a review of all sources of legislative intent. (p. 9)3. The burglary statute ( N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2(a)(1)) provides in pertinent part that: “[a] person is guilty of burglary if, with purpose to commit an offense therein or thereon he … enters a research facility, structure, or a separately secured or occupied portion thereof unless the structure was at the time open to the public or the actor is licensed or privileged to enter.” The statute (at N.J.S.A. 2C:18-1) defines “structure” as: “any building, room, ship, vessel, car, vehicle or airplane, and also means any place adapted for overnight accommodation of persons, or for carrying on business therein, whether or not a person is actually present.” (pp. 9-10)4. The burglary statute demonstrates an expansion of the list of locations that can constitute structures. The broad definition of “structure” employed in the statute is evidenced by the language and the grammatical structure ofN.J.S.A. 2C:18-1. It is also confirmed by the legislative history and evolution of the statute. At common law, the offense of burglary existed only upon entry into a dwelling. That was expanded in an early statute which included a broad range of locations in addition to dwellings. The statute was then narrowed by amendment in 1978 to reflect the common law origin of burglary through language that referenced entry into an occupied structure. The 1980 amendments, found in the current version of the statute, removed the word “occupied,” and broadened the definition of “structure” to reference “any place adapted … for carrying on business therein.” The statement accompanying the 1980 amendments confirms that this language designates an additional category of location protected by the burglary statute. (pp. 10-13)5. Under that portion of N.J.S.A. 2C:18-1 which references “any place adapted … for carrying on business,” a storage lot can be a “structure” when it is specifically used for conducting commercial activity and is secured from the public. In this case, the Court finds that the fenced-in and locked lot constitutes a “structure” within the scope of the burglary statute because use of the lot for storage of equipment and material furthers Domino Manufacturing’s business operations, and the company adapted the parking lot for the purpose of storage by fencing and securing it to prevent public access. (pp. 13-17) The judgment of the Appellate Division is AFFIRMED. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER; JUSTICES LaVECCHIA, ALBIN, PATTERSON and SOLOMON; and JUDGE CUFF (temporarily assigned) join in JUSTICE FERNANDEZ-VINA’s opinion. 2 SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY A- 83 September Term 2013 073364STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v.MARC A. OLIVERO, Defendant-Appellant. Argued January 6, 2015 – Decided June 29, 2015 On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division. Michael J. Confusione, Designated Counsel, argued the cause for appellant (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney). Andrew R. Burroughs, Special Deputy Attorney General/Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent (Carolyn A. Murray, Acting Essex County Prosecutor, attorney). Jeffrey P. Mongiello, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for Attorney General of New Jersey (John J. Hoffman, Attorney General, attorney). JUSTICE FERNANDEZ-VINA delivered the opinion of the Court. “A person is guilty of burglary if, with purpose to commitan offense therein or thereon he . . . enters a structure.”N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2. This case turns on whether a locked, fenced-in parking lot used for storage by the adjacent manufacturingfacility constitutes a “structure,” as defined by N.J.S.A. 1 2C:18-1, that is, whether it is a “place adapted . . . forcarrying on business.” Defendant Marc A. Olivero was convicted of third-degreeburglary. On appeal, he argued that a reasonable jury could notfind that he entered a “structure” as defined by N.J.S.A. 2C:18-1. The Appellate Division affirmed defendant’s conviction andsentence. The panel found that the lot was a “structure”because it was surrounded by a fence and secured to restrictpublic access. The panel also found that, because the lot wasenclosed to protect items that could not be stored within DominoManufacturing’s warehouse, it was a “place adapted . . . forcarrying on [Domino Manufacturing’s] business.” For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm thejudgment of the Appellate Division. We hold that a fenced-inparking lot is a “structure” within the meaning of N.J.S.A.2C:18-2 when the lot is secured from the public and is used forbusiness purposes. I. Domino Manufacturing operates a warehouse located inNewark. The five-story warehouse is enclosed by a fence with alocked gate. In order to access the property, an individualmust drive down a road that leads to the gate. Once inside thegate, a gravel road leads to a lot behind the building which isalso the location of the company’s loading dock. Domino 2 Manufacturing uses that lot to store metal shafts and printingrollers used in printing presses. The rollers are kept outsidebecause they are too heavy to be moved inside the warehouse, butthey are stored within the locked, fenced-in lot. On December 18, 2010, at about 5:00 a.m., a security guardemployed by Domino Manufacturing called the police afternoticing that the chain and padlock that secured the rear-lotfence had been cut. The police arrived minutes later and foundtwo individuals, later identified as defendant, Marc A. Olivero,and his brother, Gary Olivero, attempting to exit the main gatein a pickup truck. The police officers inspected the truckfinding bolt cutters, the padlock from the gate, and elevenmetal printing rollers. Domino Manufacturing’s security guardtestified at trial that the metal rollers found in the back ofthe pickup truck were the metal rollers that had been kept onthe business’s premises. Defendant and his brother were charged with third-degreeburglary, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2, and disorderly personspossession of a burglary tool, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:5-5.They were tried together on the burglary charge. At the close of the State’s evidence, defense counsel movedfor acquittal on the ground that the State failed to meet itsburden of proving that the premises defendant entered was astructure. Specifically, defense counsel argued that the 3 testimony established that defendant entered a parking lot,which is not a structure as defined by N.J.S.A. 2C:18-1. Thetrial court denied the motion, noting that the fenced-in areawas a prohibited space not open to the public, as well as aplace adapted for carrying on Domino Manufacturing’s business.A jury convicted defendant of third-degree burglary. The Statedismissed the disorderly persons charge. The court sentenceddefendant to five years’ imprisonment. Before the Appellate Division, defendant argued that thetrial court erred in denying his motion for acquittal because areasonable jury could not have found that defendant had enteredany part of a “structure” as defined by N.J.S.A. 2C:18-1.Defendant contended that the evidence presented at trial onlyshowed that he entered a fenced-in yard and possessed propertythat Domino Manufacturing kept outside its warehouse. In an unpublished per curiam opinion, an Appellate Divisionpanel rejected defendant’s arguments and affirmed his convictionand sentence. The panel found that the lot was a “structure”within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 2C:18-1 because it was securedfrom the public. The court also likened the area from which thestolen property was taken to the area referred to in the commonlaw as the “curtilage” of the warehouse building. 4 This Court granted defendant’s petition for certification.217 N.J. 304 (2014). We also granted the motion of the AttorneyGeneral to appear as amicus curiae. II. Defendant argues that the Appellate Divisionmisinterpreted the term “structure” within the meaning of theburglary statute.1 Defendant asserts that a parking lot is not a“structure” as defined in N.J.S.A. 2C:18-1 and that the owner’spurpose to exclude others from entering the parking lot does nottransform it into a “structure.” Defendant further contendsthat, even if such an interpretation were possible, itsapplication would violate the principle that ambiguous penalstatutes must be construed against the State. Defendant assertsthe Appellate Division’s definition of “structure” exceeds thestatute’s plain language because N.J.S.A. 2C:18-1 does notmention the “curtilage” of the structure. Defendant adds that,even if the statute did encompass “curtilage,” the term“curtilage” typically describes “an enclosed area encompassing1 This Court granted certification to address the single issue stated above, which was the sole question presented in defendant’s petition and the only issue analyzed therein. Olivero, supra, 217 N.J. at 304. Defendant attempts via footnote to incorporate by reference all of the issues advanced in support of his appeal to the Appellate Division. It is not appropriate for a party to inject other issues into its petition in this manner. Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed defendant’s arguments with respect to the remaining issues and finds them meritless. 5 the grounds and building surrounding a home, not a commercialmanufacturing facility.” Defendant also asserts that the Appellate Division’sinterpretation of “structure” conflicts with State ex. rel.L.E.W., 239 N.J. Super. 65, 74 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 122 N.J. 144 (1990), in which the panel held that the parking lot ofa 7-11 store was not a “structure” for the purposes of atrespass charge. Defendant argues that the parking lot in thiscase is similarly outside the definition of “structure.” Defendant also contends that Domino Manufacturing did not“adapt” the parking lot as a place for “carrying on businesstherein.” According to defendant, Domino Manufacturing is apaper mill company, not a storage company. Thus, defendantargues, Domino Manufacturing had only “adapted” the actualwarehouse on the property, not the fenced-in lot. The State counters that a plain reading of N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2reveals the Legislature’s intent to “expand the crime ofburglary to include the felonious entry of a structure as wellas its adjacent curtilage or area that is occupied and closed tothe general public at the time of the offense.” In addition,the State argues that this matter is distinguishable from L.E.W.First, the State notes that N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2 was never at issuein L.E.W., nor addressed by the L.E.W. court. Second, the Stateobserves that the would-be “structure” in that case was a 6 convenience store parking lot that was typically open to thepublic. Id. at 68. Here, however, defendant entered, in theearly morning hours, an enclosed area protected by a securityguard, secured by a locked padlock, and surrounded by a fence. The Attorney General, supports the State’s position. TheAttorney General argues that the New Jersey Legislature expandedthe burglary statute in 1980 and that legislative intent cantherefore be furthered only by a broad reading of the burglarystatute and its definition of “structure.” The Attorney Generalcontends that using the lot for storage is consistent with thepurposes of the business. This is particularly true becauseDomino Manufacturing stores outside only those items that cannotbe kept inside the warehouse. The Attorney General concedes that an area that is open tothe public is not considered a “structure” under N.J.S.A. 2C:18-1. Likewise, the Attorney General acknowledges that a place isonly adapted for business purposes if the business exercisesdominion over the area beyond the natural state. For instance,where two people have conducted a transaction but did not intendto adapt the specific area for a business purpose, a burglarycannot occur. III. The meaning of “structure” within the burglary statute isan issue of statutory construction; our review is therefore de 7 novo. Perez v. Zagami, LLC, 218 N.J. 202, 209 (2014). It iswell settled that the goal of statutory interpretation is toascertain and effectuate the Legislature’s intent. Murray v.Plainfield Rescue Squad, 210 N.J. 581, 592 (2012) (citing Allenv. V & A Bros., Inc., 208 N.J. 114, 127 (2011)). Courts shouldfirst look to the plain language of the statute, “which istypically the best indicator of intent.” In re Plan for theAbolition of the Council on Affordable Hous., 214 N.J. 444, 467(2013). Statutory language is to be interpreted “in a commonsense manner to accomplish the legislative purpose.” N.E.R.I.Corp. v. N.J. Highway Auth., 147 N.J. 223, 236 (1996). Whenthat language “'clearly reveals the meaning of the statute, thecourt’s sole function is to enforce the statute in accordancewith those terms.’” McCann v. Clerk of Jersey City, 167 N.J. 311, 320 (2001) (quoting SASCO 1997 NJ, LLC v. Zudkewich, 166 N.J. 564, 586 (2001)). However, “[i]f the plain language of a statute is not clearor if it is susceptible to more than one plausible meaning,” theCourt may look to extrinsic evidence such as legislative historyto determine legislative intent. Marino v. Marino, 200 N.J. 315, 329 (2009). In discerning legislative intent, the Courtmay consider “not only the particular statute in question, butalso the entire legislative scheme of which it is a part.”Kimmelman v. Henkels & McCoy, Inc., 108 N.J. 123, 129 (1987). 8 The burglary statute is penal; it must therefore bestrictly construed. State v. D.A., 191 N.J. 158, 164 (2007).“The strict construction doctrine, and its corollary, thedoctrine of lenity, mean[] that words are given their ordinarymeaning and that any reasonable doubt . . . is decided in favorof [the defendant].” Ibid. (quotation omitted). The rule oflenity, however, is not invoked simply because there arecompeting judicial interpretations of the statutory language.“It does not invariably follow, that every time someone cancreate an argument about the meaning of a penal sanction, thestatute is impermissibly vague, or that the lowest penaltyarguably applicable must be imposed.” State v. Regis, 208 N.J. 439, 452 (2011). Instead, the rule of lenity is applied only ifa statute is ambiguous, and that ambiguity is not resolved by areview of “all sources of legislative intent.” State v. D.A.,191 N.J. 158, 165 (2007) (quotation omitted). “A court may lookto extrinsic evidence to clarify an ambiguity and divinelegislative intent in the context of a penal statute.” Ibid. IV. The burglary statute provides that [a] person is guilty of burglary if, with purpose to commit an offense therein or thereon he . . . enters a research facility, structure, or a separately secured or occupied portion thereof unless the structure was at the time open to the public or the actor is licensed or privileged to enter. 9 [N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2(a)(1).]N.J.S.A. 2C:18-1 defines “structure” as any building, room, ship, vessel, car, vehicle or airplane, and also means any place adapted for overnight accommodation of persons, or for carrying on business therein, whether or not a person is actually present.The fenced-in area at issue in this case does not qualify as a“building, room, ship, vessel, car, vehicle or airplane.” Thus,we focus our attention on whether the subject location is a“place adapted . . . for carrying on business therein.” A. As a threshold matter, we note that the phrase “placeadapted . . . for carrying on business therein” expands, ratherthan modifies, the list of locations that can constitute“structures” as defined by N.J.S.A. 2C:18-1. The punctuationand structure of the burglary statute indicate as much -- thepresence of a comma after “airplane” when none is present after“vehicle,” together with the repetition of “means,” indicatesaddition rather than modification. That grammatical signal finds support in the legislativehistory of the burglary statute. At common law, burglaryapplied only to dwellings. See, e.g., State v. Hauptmann, 115 N.J.L. 412, 424 (E & A 1935) (“In 1 Russ. Crimes *785, burglaryis defined as 'a breaking and entering the mansion house of 10 another in the night, with intent to commit some felony withinthe same, whether such felonious intent be executed or not.’”),cert. denied, 296 U.S. 649 , 56 S. Ct. 310, 80 L. Ed. 461 (1935).In its earlier iteration as N.J.S.A. 2A:94-1, the burglarystatute criminalized “breaking and entering” as follows: “Anyperson who willfully or maliciously breaks and enters, or enterswithout breaking, any building, structure, room, ship, vessel,car, vehicle or airplane, with intent to kill, kidnap, rob,steal, commit rape, mayhem or battery, is guilty of a highmisdemeanor.” (Emphasis added). The statute thus applied to abroad range of locations, not merely to places in which peoplelived. In 1978, the Legislature narrowed the statute to moreclosely reflect burglary’s common law origins. The Legislaturedetermined that the expansion of the crime of burglary has led to serious problems. Since every burglary is by hypothesis an attempt to commit some other crime, and since even the lower degrees of burglary are often punishable more severely than the crime which the actor was preparing to commit, the great expansion of burglary has introduced serious anomalies in prosecution and punishment. . . . The needed reform [in the Criminal Code] takes the direction of narrowing the offense to something like the distinctive situation for which it was originally devised: invasion of premises under circumstances specially likely to terrorize occupants. [State v. Schenck, 186 N.J. Super. 236, 238 11 (Law Div. 1982) (quoting II Final Report of the New Jersey Criminal Law Revision Commission, “The New Jersey Penal Code,” at 209-10 (Oct. 1971)).]The Legislature therefore amended the burglary statute toresemble the Model Penal Code’s narrower version of thatoffense. See Cannel, New Jersey Criminal Code Annotated,comment 1 on N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2, at 485 (2014-15) (noting thatburglary statute was derived from MPC 221.0). The 1978 version of the statute provided: “A person isguilty of burglary if, with purpose to commit an offense thereinhe: (1) Enters a building or occupied structure, or aseparately secured or occupied portion thereof, unless thepremises are at the time open to the public or the actor islicensed or privileged to enter.” N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2 (1978)(emphasis added); see State v. Velez, 176 N.J. Super. 136, 139(App. Div. 1980), certif. denied, 85 N.J. 504 (1981). The arrayof locations to which the burglary statute would apply did notdiffer dramatically from the predicate statute: The 1978statute defined “occupied structure” as “any structure, vehicle,boat, airplane or place adapted for overnight accommodation ofpersons or for carrying on business therein, whether or not aperson is actually present.” N.J.S.A. 2C:18-1; see Velez,supra, 176 N.J. Super. at 139. 12 In 1980, the Legislature again amended the burglarystatute, this time to broaden the definition of the term“structure.” Assembly, Judiciary, Law, Public Safety andDefense Committee, Statement to Senate Bill No. 884, at 1 (June5, 1980). Specifically, the 1980 amendments removed the word“occupied” as the modifier for the word “structure.” Ibid. Therevision also added the words “also means any” before thelanguage related to “place adapted for . . . .” N.J.S.A. 2C:18-1 (as amended by L. 1980, c. 112). In enacting the current version of the burglary statute,the Legislature explained that “[t]he primary purpose of thebill is to make clear that the unlawful entry of any building,room, ship, vessel, car, vehicle or airplane, or any placeadapted for overnight accommodation or for carrying on business,is a burglary.” Statement to Senate Bill No. 884, at 2-3 (Jan.24, 1980). Thus, the phrases “any place adapted for overnightaccommodation” and “any place adapted . . . for carrying onbusiness therein” do not modify other terms in the statute.Instead, they constitute additional categories of locationsprotected by the burglary statute. B. The question remains whether a privately secured, fenced-inlot used to store a business’s property is a “placeadapted . . . for carrying on business” for purposes of the 13 burglary statute. We find that the burglary statute canencompass such lots under certain circumstances. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “place of business” as “[a]location at which one carries on a business,” which suggeststhat “place” is in no way limited by physical characteristics.Black’s Law Dictionary 1666 (9th ed. 2009). “Business” is “[a]commercial enterprise carried on for profit; a particularoccupation or employment habitually engaged in for livelihood orgain.” Id. at 226. “Adapt” means “[t]o adjust to a specifieduse or situation.” Webster’s II, New Riverside UniversityDictionary 77 (1999). To adapt a lot to serve as a storage lot,for example, the lot would have to be secured from the public.We therefore find that a storage lot can be a “structure” forpurposes of the burglary statute as a place adapted for businesswhen it is specifically used for conducting commercial activityand is secured from the public. Other case law informs our decision. In L.E.W., supra, ajuvenile was “hanging out” in the parking lot of a 7-11 with herboyfriend, but the store owner did not wish to have her on theproperty. 239 N.J. Super. at 68. The juvenile was subsequentlyarrested and charged with defiant trespass. Ibid. The defianttrespass statute contains an affirmative defense that a personcannot be guilty of defiant trespass if “[t]he structure was atthe time open to members of the public.” N.J.S.A. 2C:18- 14 3(c)(2). The statute also incorporates the definition of“structure” provided in N.J.S.A. 2C:18-1. L.E.W., supra, 239 N.J. Super. at 70. The juvenile attempted to invoke thisaffirmative defense; however, the panel concluded that “[a]parking lot is not a structure,” thus depriving her of thedefense. Id. at 74. This matter, however, is distinguishable. L.E.W. involveda parking lot that was open to the public. Ibid. That lot wasavailable so that invitees could park their cars in order toshop at the convenience store. Ibid. The lot behind DominoManufacturing’s warehouse, by contrast, is never open to thepublic. Rather, it is fully fenced-in and protected by both apadlock and a security guard. In Commonwealth v. Hagan, 654 A.2d 541 , 543 (Pa. 1995), theSupreme Court of Pennsylvania found that a fenced-in storage lotwas an “occupied structure” under its burglary and criminaltrespass statutes. The Pennsylvania statute defines burglary asfollows: “A person commits the offense of burglary if, with theintent to commit a crime therein, the person: (1) enters abuilding or occupied structure, or separately secured oroccupied portion thereof . . . .” 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3502.The statute then defines “occupied structure” to include “[a]nystructure, vehicle or place adapted for overnight accommodation 15 of persons, or for carrying on business therein, whether or nota person is actually present.” 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3501. In Hagan, supra, the defendant entered a storage lot“enclosed by a chain link fence and secured at the gate by alock and chain.” 654 A.2d at 543. The site was previouslyutilized as a manufacturing facility; however, it was no longerin active use. Ibid. The lot contained two vacant and inactivebuildings. Ibid. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that “afenced and secured storage lot [wa]s a 'place adapted forcarrying on business,’” noting that “storage is a businessactivity no less than any other facet of a business such asmanufacturing, retail sales, or distribution.” Id. at 544. Similarly, in State v. Hill, 449 N.W.2d 626 , 626 -28 (Iowa1989), the Iowa Supreme Court upheld the defendant’s burglaryconviction for attempting to steal used pistons from a fenced-inenclosure behind an automobile parts store. The Hill courtinterpreted a burglary statute that defined “occupied structure”to include “[a]ny building, structure, appurtenances tobuildings and structures, land, water or air vehicle, or similarplace adapted for overnight accommodation of persons, oroccupied by persons for the purpose of carrying on business orother activity therein, or for the storage or safekeeping ofanything of value.” Iowa Code § 702.12. 16 The facts of this case are more similar to those addressedby the highest courts of Pennsylvania and Iowa than to the factsof the L.E.W. case. Here, Domino Manufacturing’s use of the lotfurthers its business: Domino Manufacturing utilizes itssecured lot for storing items too heavy or too large to bestored in the warehouse. Although storage is not the focus ofDomino Manufacturing’s paper mill business, the storage ofequipment and material is a corollary of that business and is,therefore, part of Domino Manufacturing’s “commercialenterprise.” Furthermore, unlike in L.E.W., DominoManufacturing adapted the parking lot for the purpose of storageby fencing the lot and securing it to prevent public access. Thus, when defendant entered the lot to remove metalrollers, he entered a “place . . . adapted for carrying onbusiness,” N.J.S.A. 2C:18-1, “with purpose to commit an offensetherein,” N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2, in contravention of the burglarystatute. Because we find that Domino Manufacturing’s fenced-inand locked lot itself constitutes a “structure” within themeaning of the burglary statute, we do not reach the argumentthat the lot is part of the “curtilage” of the warehouse. V. For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of theAppellate Division is affirmed. 17 CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER; JUSTICES LaVECCHIA, ALBIN, PATTERSON and SOLOMON; and JUDGE CUFF (temporarily assigned) join in JUSTICE FERNANDEZ-VINA’s opinion. 18 SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEYNO. A-83 SEPTEMBER TERM 2013ON CERTIFICATION TO Appellate Division, Superior CourtSTATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v.MARC A. OLIVERO, Defendant-Appellant.DECIDED June 29, 2015 Chief Justice Rabner PRESIDING OPINION BY Justice Fernandez-Vina CONCURRING/DISSENTING OPINIONS BY DISSENTING OPINION BYCHECKLIST AFFIRM CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER X JUSTICE LaVECCHIA X JUSTICE ALBIN X JUSTICE PATTERSON X JUSTICE FERNANDEZ-VINA X JUSTICE SOLOMON X JUDGE CUFF (t/a) X TOTALS 7