Opinion ID: 1249344
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Instruction on Armed Burglary

Text: At trial, defendant objected to the armed burglary instruction on the sole ground there was no evidence that either he or Davis possessed a dangerous instrument while entering or leaving the house. The trial court correctly overruled that objection, observing that it would be sufficient for armed burglary if a dangerous instrument was possessed while remaining in the house unlawfully. On appeal, defendant's objection has been expanded. He now argues that no burglary instruction at all should have been given because there was no showing that [defendant] entered the ... residence on anything more than a whim. It was not conclusively proven that he had any intent, subjective or objective, to commit a felony at the time he entered the residence. This argument accords preclusive effect to the defendant's version of the evidence. Jury instructions are not determined by such a unilateral view. There was no error.