Opinion ID: 1959555
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 17

Heading: Sufficiency of the Evidence for the Burglary Conviction

Text: Notwithstanding our holding that the Circuit Court erred in denying Appellant's suppression motion and permitting his confession to be admitted into evidence at trial, we also must consider Appellant's sufficiency of the evidence argument as to his burglary conviction. When a criminal defendant properly appeals the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his or her conviction on any count, Maryland appellate courts normally address the sufficiency issues even when that court decides to reverse the judgment of the trial court on another ground. The rationale for this is based on double jeopardy principles. If we were to hold that the evidence before the fact finder, including the improperly admitted evidence, was legally sufficient to support a burglary conviction, Appellant would be precluded from arguing successfully that the double jeopardy protection bars a retrial on that charge. This is so because [w]hen a criminal defendant takes an appeal and succeeds in having his conviction reversed on a ground other than the sufficiency of the evidence, the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause does not preclude a retrial of the defendant on the same charges. State v. Kramer, 318 Md. 576, 593, 569 A.2d 674, 682 (1990) (quoting Huffington v. State, 302 Md. 184, 189, 486 A.2d 200, 203 (1983)). See also Warfield v. State, 315 Md. 474, 502, 554 A.2d 1238, 1252 (1989). If, on the other hand, we hold that the evidence admitted at trial was insufficient to sustain the burglary conviction, then double jeopardy prohibits the retrial of Appellant for burglary because of original error committed by the trial court. See Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 11, 98 S.Ct. 2141, 2147, 57 L.Ed.2d 1, 9 (1978) ([t]he Double Jeopardy Clause forbids a second trial for the purpose of affording the prosecution another opportunity to supply evidence which it failed to muster in the first proceeding). When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, it is not the function of the appellate court to undertake a review of the record that would amount to a retrial of the case. See State v. Albrecht, 336 Md. 475, 478, 649 A.2d 336, 337 (1994). Rather, the standard of review regarding the sufficiency of evidence to support a criminal conviction is whether the record evidence could reasonably support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2788, 61 L.Ed.2d 560, 573 (1979); Oken v. State, 327 Md. 628, 661, 612 A.2d 258, 274 (1992); Tichnell v. State, 287 Md. 695, 717, 415 A.2d 830, 842 (1980). In other words, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and will reverse the judgment only if we find that no rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime. See State v. Sowell, 353 Md. 713, 726, 728 A.2d 712, 719 (1999); Oken, 327 Md. at 661, 612 A.2d at 274. Applying this standard to the agreed statement of facts in this case, we hold there was sufficient evidence contained there to convict Appellant of burglary in the first degree. The statutory definition of burglary in the first degree provides that a person may not break and enter the dwelling of another with the intent to commit a theft or crime of violence. Maryland Code, (1957, 1996 Repl.Vol., 1999 cum. supp.), Article 27, § 29; [25] See also Conyers v. State, 345 Md. 525, 557, 693 A.2d 781, 796 (1997). Statutory crimes of violence include abduction, arson in the first degree, kidnaping, voluntary manslaughter, mayhem and maiming, murder, rape, robbery, carjacking, first and second degree sexual offense, use of a handgun in the commission of a felony or crime of violence, attempts thereto, and first and second degree assault. See Maryland Code, (1957, 1996 Repl.Vol., 1999 cum. supp.), Article 27, § 643B(a). The breaking element of burglary may be satisfied where it is shown that there has been an `actual' breaking, or the breaking occurred `constructively,' through an entry gained by artifice, by fraud, conspiracy, or by threats. Oken, 327 Md. at 662, 612 A.2d at 274; Brooks v. State, 277 Md. 155, 159-160, 353 A.2d 217, 220 (1976); Williams v. State, 205 Md. 470, 477, 109 A.2d 89, 93 (1954). We have also defined constructive breaking to include [e]very unlawful entry. Brooks, 277 Md. at 160, 353 A.2d at 220. The Court of Special Appeals has noted that: The breaking element is not limited to an outside door or window. If the outside door is open but the felonious design requires entrance into a part of the building which is closed, the making of an opening into that part of the house is a breaking. Arnold v. State, 7 Md.App. 1, 4, 252 A.2d 878, 879 (1969). Appellant argues there was insufficient evidence to prove he broke into the Mainors' home. He asserts that his conviction was based solely upon his confession to the police and Allan Mainor's testimony that John Mainor was security conscious and usually kept his doors locked. Appellant contends there was no break because his statements to the police do not admit, nor indicate, a breaking of the Mainors' house, and that John Mainor's security habits are irrelevant. In support of his argument, Appellant contends his statements to the police are more susceptible of an inference that [Appellant] walked through a door left open by the Mainors than it is that [Appellant] broke into the house. We find Appellant's arguments to be unpersuasive. From the record before the Circuit Court, a rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of first degree burglary beyond a reasonable doubt. See Sowell, 353 Md. at 726, 728 A.2d at 719; Oken, 327 Md. at 661, 612 A.2d at 274. According to the agreed statement of the facts, the following occurred as Appellant approached the Mainors' residence: At that point he observed Christie Lee Mainor walk into the side garage door. The [Appellant] admitted that he walked up behind her and she screamed. The [Appellant] then said that he and Christie, Christie Mainor, were in the garage and that Mr. John Mainor came out of the kitchen with a knife. The [Appellant] said Mr. Mainor told Christie to get inside the residence, that John Mainor pushed the [Appellant] and, according to the statement of the [Appellant], a struggle then ensued over the knife at which time the [Appellant] indicated he was cut. The [Appellant] said that he got the knife away from Mr. Mainor and then cut Mr. Mainor on the neck. The [Appellant] said Mr. Mainor then located the hammer and struck the [Appellant] on his leg. The [Appellant] said that he got the hammer away from Mr. Mainor and the [Appellant] then told the troopers that he told Mr. Mainor to get into the house. According to the [Appellant's] statement, Mr. Mainor went into the house and began knocking things off of the counter. I would note that Dr. Locke indicated that the injury to the skull of Mr. John Mainor would initially cause a loss of equilibrium and difficulty with balance. Going on with the [Appellant's] statement, he indicated that all three victims were screaming and yelling and that while he was holding the knife he told them to all sit down and shut up. The [Appellant] stated to the troopers that at that point the Mainors were on the couch, meaning John and Geraldine Mainor were on the couch, but that he did not know where Christie was. A rational fact finder could conclude that Appellant violently struggled with John Mainor in order to gain access to the Mainors' residence. Appellant admitted that he took a knife away from John Mainor and cut him on the neck. He then took the hammer from John Mainor and, given John Mainor's loss of balance upon re-entering his residence, Appellant most likely hit him in the head with a hammer. It could be concluded also that Appellant ordered John Mainor to get into the house. This command occurred while Appellant was armed with a knife and, in all likelihood, a hammer, after he cut John Mainor with the knife, and, presumably, hit him in the head with the hammer. Our analysis is unaffected by the fact that the break did not occur at the outside garage door because the breaking of an inner door to a dwelling is sufficient for burglary. See Arnold, 7 Md.App. at 4, 252 A.2d at 879. The agreed facts indicate that Appellant gained access to the Mainors' residence by force, while armed with both a knife and hammer, thus constituting a constructive break. See Oken, 327 Md. at 662, 612 A.2d at 274. In Hebron v. State, we stated an entry occurs when `any part of ... [the trespasser's] person is within the house' and that the entry is sufficient if any part of the actor's person intruded, even momentarily, into the structure. See Hebron, 331 Md. 219, 236, 627 A.2d 1029, 1037 (1993). According to Appellant's statement to the police, he entered the Mainors' home through the kitchen door following his altercation with John Mainor. The entry requirement for first degree burglary was fulfilled. We next consider whether there was sufficient evidence from which a rational fact finder could have concluded that Appellant had the requisite intent to commit a crime of violence as he was breaking and entering the Mainors' residence. When analyzing the intent to commit a theft or crime of violence, the actual intention at the time of the breaking is controlling. See Reed v. State, 316 Md. 521, 526, 560 A.2d 1104, 1106 (1989); Pearre v. State, 237 Md. 622, 624, 206 A.2d 249, 250 (1965). As we stated in Reed, it is not burglary if the intent is formed after the breaking and entering are completed. Reed, 316 Md. at 526, 560 A.2d at 1106. Because of the frequent practical difficulties in proving directly an accused's intention when he or she breaks into a dwelling, we have held that the intention at the time of the break may be inferred from the circumstances. See Reed, 316 Md. at 527, 560 A.2d at 1107; Ridley v. State, 228 Md. 281, 282, 179 A.2d 710, 711 (1962). More specifically, we have stated that [f]inding the requisite intent to [commit a violent crime] is ... never a precise process for intent is subjective, and it must therefore be inferred from the circumstances of the case. Reed, 316 at 527, 560 A.2d at 1106-07. A trier of fact therefore may examine the surrounding circumstances, including an accused's acts and declarations, in order to reach a rational conclusion regarding the intention of the accused. See Ridley, 228 Md. at 282, 179 A.2d at 711; Rahe v. State, 222 Md. 508, 510, 161 A.2d 696, 697 (1960); Johnson v. State, 5 Md.App. 540, 545, 248 A.2d 663, 666-67 (1968). A surreptitious or forceful breaking strongly indicates criminal intent. See Reed, 316 Md. at 527, 560 A.2d at 1107. We also have explained that the most conclusive evidence in determining whether an accused intended to commit a violent crime is the commission of the violent crime itself. See id. Appellant's statement to the police permitted a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant had the requisite intent to commit a violent crime when he broke and entered the Mainors' home. See Oken, 327 Md. at 661, 612 A.2d at 274. Appellant's violent struggle with John Mainor in the garage, and the forceful nature of his break, constitutes a first degree assault prior to entering the Mainor residence. This first degree assault, prior to entering the Mainors' home, strongly suggests Appellant intended to perpetrate a violent crime upon entering the Mainor residence. See Reed, 316 Md. at 527, 560 A.2d at 1107. Based on the agreed statement of facts, a rational fact finder could have inferred that Appellant committed an assault in the first degree and murder in the first degree, both obvious violent crimes, while inside the Mainor residence. See Maryland Code, (1957, 1996 Repl.Vol., 1999 cum. supp.), Article 27, § 643B(a). Appellant recounted in his statements in the agreed statement of facts that, upon breaking and entering the Mainors' residence, .... that all three victims were screaming and yelling and that while he was holding the knife he told them to all sit down and shut up. The [Appellant] stated to the troopers that at that point the Mainors were on the couch, meaning John and Geraldine Mainor were on the couch, but that he did not know where Christie was. The [Appellant] stated that he recalls someone running through the house, struck him with a chair, and that it may have been Christie. The [Appellant] further indicated that at some point he blanked out, that he did not know exactly what occurred, but that he said after whatever occurred, they were all dead. He further indicated that he sat on the floor and that he knew they were dead because they were not screaming or moving. This evidence demonstrates that Appellant, upon entering the Mainors' residence, further assaulted and then murdered John, Geraldine, and Christine Mainor. We hold that the evidence supported a rational trier of fact finding the essential elements of burglary in the first degree beyond a reasonable doubt. See Sowell, 353 Md. at 726, 728 A.2d at 719; Oken, 327 Md. at 661, 612 A.2d at 274. V.