Opinion ID: 1527371
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ownership of the burglarized premises

Text: We are first asked to determine whether the evidence was sufficient to prove ownership of the stereo store which was the object of the attempted burglary. That is, we must decide whether the evidence presented to the jury would allow a reasonable person to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the stereo store was the property of someone other than these appellants. In a prosecution for burglary or attempted burglary in the District of Columbia, the government must prove that the building or other premises involved were the property of another. While such proof is not explicitly mandated by our burglary statute, [5] the case law requires it in order to negative the defendant's right to break and enter, and to protect him from a second prosecution for the same offense. Cady v. United States, 54 App. D.C. 10, 13, 293 F. 829, 832 (1923); accord, Bord v. United States, 76 U.S.App.D.C. 205, 206, 133 F.2d 313, 314, cert. denied, 317 U.S. 671, 63 S.Ct. 77, 87 L.Ed. 539 (1942). Appellants contend that because the government failed to prove, or even to allege, [6] the corporate status of the owner of the stereo store, they are entitled to a judgment of acquittal. We hold, to the contrary, that the government was obliged to prove only that the store was the property of someone other than the appellants. It did not have to prove that the owner was a corporation (if in fact it was); indeed, it did not have to prove precisely who the owner was, so long as the evidence established that appellants were not the owners. In Bord v. United States, supra , the defendant was convicted of housebreaking (the statutory predecessor of burglary under our current Code) and larceny. The indictment charged that he entered the building of the Stanley Company of America, a body corporate, said building being known as the Savoy Theater. On appeal he contended that the government had failed to prove the corporate status of the Stanley Company, in that there was no proof either that the named Company was incorporated or that it occupied the theater. 76 U.S.App.D.C. at 206, 133 F.2d at 314. The court held, however, that the testimony of the assistant manager of the theater and a representative of Warner Brothers was sufficient to prove both facts by `reputation,' i.e., by `evidence tending to show that the corporation was de facto organized and acting as such.' Id. (footnote omitted). The court went on to say, in language particularly relevant to this case: We do not suggest that failure to prove the identity and corporate character of the occupant would have called for reversal.... Whoever occupied the Savoy Theater, it is obvious that appellant had no right to break and enter it or to remove property from it, and it was sufficiently identified so that he cannot again be prosecuted for these offenses. Id. (emphasis added). Likewise, in Cady v. United States, supra , the court affirmed a conviction of burglarizing a garage when the indictment alleged that the garage was occupied by one person, but the evidence at trial revealed that this person and another were the actual occupants. In holding that this was not a material or substantial variance, the court observed that [t]he purpose of the law in requiring the name of the [occupant] to be stated was to negate the defendant's right to break and enter and to protect him from a second prosecution for the same offense. It then concluded: This purpose is sufficiently satisfied where, as in the present case, it is alleged and proved that a person other than the defendant occupied and used the garage when it was entered. 54 App.D.C. at 13, 293 F. at 832 (emphasis added). Our analysis is supported by a series of recent cases in which we have affirmed convictions of shoplifting. Under our shoplifting statute, D.C.Code § 22-3813 (1989), which was added to the Code in 1982, [7] the government must prove that the defendant engaged in certain conduct with respect to personal property of another that is offered for sale.... In Carmon v. United States, 498 A.2d 580 (D.C.1985), the defendant contended on appeal that the government had failed to prove exactly who owned the sweaters he was accused of taking. After summarizing the evidence, which included testimony from a store detective describing the defendant's conduct, we held that the trier of fact could reasonably find that the proprietor of the store, whoever he, she, or it may have been, was the owner of the sweaters and that appellant was not. It was not necessary to prove exactly who the owner of the sweaters was, but merely that the owner i.e., the person or persons entitled to exercise dominion and control over the propertywas someone other than appellant. The combination of appellant's behavior (entering the store, removing the sweaters from the hangers, concealing them under his coat, and then leaving the store), the sales clerk's comment, which was admitted without objection, and the presence of the price tags on the sweaters was sufficient to prove that the sweaters were the property of another, which is all that the statute requires. Id. at 582-583 (emphasis added; footnotes omitted). We reached a similar result in Alston v. United States, 509 A.2d 1129, 1131 (D.C.1986) (it is not necessary for the government to prove exactly who the owner of the merchandise is, but only that the owner was someone other than the appellant (footnote omitted)), and again in Baldwin v. United States, 521 A.2d 650 (D.C.1987) (evidence that defendant took rolled-up dresses with price tags on them, concealed them under his coat, and headed toward the exit was sufficient to show that the dresses were the property of another). Neither Atkinson v. United States, 322 A.2d 587 (D.C.1974), nor Nelson v. United States, 142 A.2d 604 (D.C.1958), supports appellant's argument. Although there is language in Nelson, quoted in Atkinson, which suggests that the corporate status of the owner of stolen property must be proved, the language from Bord v. United States quoted at page 775, supra, is plainly to the contrary, and more recent case law makes clear that Atkinson and Nelson imposed no such requirement. See Wright v. United States, 570 A.2d 731, 737 (D.C.1990). [8] Guided by Bord and Cady, with an assist from Carmon, we readily conclude that the evidence in this case was sufficient to prove that the stereo store was owned by someone other than these appellants. Viewed in the light most favorable to the government, the evidence showed that appellants and their companions cased the store for over an hour, attempted to loosen the security grating at the front of the building, cut the telephone cables behind the building (thereby triggering the silent burglar alarm), broke the window at the front of the store, and walked quickly from the scene as the non-silent alarm began to sound. Furthermore, appellant Douglas was carrying a knapsack containing what could well be regarded as burglary tools, which he tried to discard as he fled from the police. Such conduct was sufficient to permit the jury to find that appellants were not the owners of the store and did not have a right to break and enter it in the middle of the night.