Opinion ID: 2251602
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sufficiency of the Evidence: Burglary

Text: Appellant's sufficiency argument is predicated upon two claims. He first maintains that walking through an existing hole in the wall of the store does not constitute a breaking as defined by Ind. Code § 35-43-2-1. Second, Trice contends that his unexplained presence in the store is insufficient to establish an intent to commit a felony. When the sufficiency of the evidence is at issue, this Court does not weigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. Rather, we consider only that evidence most favorable to the State and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. If there is substantial evidence of probative value which would permit a trier of fact to find the existence of each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, then the judgment must be affirmed. Richards v. State (1985), Ind., 481 N.E.2d 1093. A breaking is established when even the slightest force is used to gain unauthorized entry: even opening an unlocked door is sufficient. Howard v. State (1982), Ind., 433 N.E.2d 753. Trice asserts that there was not any evidence that he participated in making the hole in the common wall and that evidence of mere presence in the store does not constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he did so. Whether that is correct or not, one need only accept appellant's version of the events in order to sustain the conviction. At trial appellant testified that he turned the knob and then pushed the hotel door open. He proceeded to enter the store through the hole in the north wall of the hotel storage room. For purposes of the burglary statute, a breaking occurs even though immediate access to the targeted premises is not achieved as long as entry to the targeted premises is afforded. Appellant's second contention that the evidence is insufficient to establish his intention to commit a felony flies in the face of his own trial testimony. Trice admitted during cross-examination that he entered the store with the intention to remove merchandise.