Opinion ID: 1515839
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Sufficiency of the State's Evidence of Burglary

Text: Warren lastly argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because the State did not present sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of second-degree burglary. To convict Warren of second-degree burglary, the State must prove that Warren knowingly entered the apartment of Felton's neighbor unlawfully with the intent to commit a crime. [26] Warren concedes that he entered the apartment but maintains that the State failed to prove that his entry was unlawful (without permission) or that he intended to steal something once inside. [27] The trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion to acquit is subject to de novo review in this Court. A conviction must be sustained if any rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [28] In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, we do not distinguish between direct and circumstantial evidence. [29] Because there is no direct evidence that Warren actually removed anything from the neighbor's apartment, the State relied on circumstantial evidence indicating that Warren intended to remove items from the apartment when he entered. For example, the arresting officer testified that, during his search of the neighbor's apartment, he found that the window-screen had been removed from the rear window, and he found a garbage bag in front of the electronic area where the VCR is and Nintendo. He also noticed that some of the electronic equipment had been unplugged and was in disarray. Viewed in a light most favorable to the State, this evidence is sufficient to support Warren's conviction for second-degree burglary. The jury could reasonably infer that Warren's entry was unlawful because a person with permission to enter a second-story apartment would not enter through the rear window of the apartment. Similarly, the jury could infer that Warren entered the apartment intending to steal the neighbor's electronic equipment because some of the devices had been unplugged and because Warren placed a garbage bag near the equipment. [30] The jury could also properly reject Warren's innocent explanation for his conduct. [31] Based on this evidence, we conclude that the Superior Court properly denied Warren's motion for judgment of acquittal on the charge of second-degree burglary.