Opinion ID: 2291968
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether jeremiah was legally guilty of breaking and entering

Text: Jeremiah was convicted of two counts of unlawful breaking and entering in the daytime in violation of G.L. 1956 (1981 Reenactment) § 11-8-5.1, which provides that [e]very person who shall break and enter any bank, shop, office or warehouse, not adjoining to or occupied as a dwelling house, any meeting house, church, chapel, courthouse, town house, college, academy, schoolhouse, library or other building erected for public use or occupied for any purpose or any ship or vessel during the daytime, shall be imprisoned not more than three (3) years or fined not more than three hundred dollars ($300), or shall suffer both such fine and imprisonment. There is no dispute that on the date in question, Jeremiah broke into and entered the premises leased and occupied by the Casinellis. However, Jeremiah argues that he did so under a claim of right and accordingly, he argues that his entry was not unlawful. In support of his position, Jeremiah first claims that the trial justice, in her charge to the jury, did not sufficiently explain the meaning of the word unlawful. In her charge, the trial justice stated, to break means to exert force to gain an entrance. Entry is the unlawful making of one's way into a building. According to Jeremiah, unlawful should have been defined as with intent to commit a crime, rather than being left to speculation by the jury. A review of § 11-8-5.1 reveals that intent to commit a crime is not explicitly required as an element of the offense. The statute requires nothing more than an unlawful breaking and entering, and the trial justice's instructions reflect this fact. By contrast, §§ 11-8-4 and 11-8-5, which also relate to breaking and entering offenses, include felonious or criminal intent as an element of those offenses. [3] However, the penalties attendant to those crimes are imprisonment up to ten years, whereas, the penalty for violation of § 11-8-5.1 is imprisonment for not more than three years and/or a $300 fine. Thus the more severe penalties attendant to convictions under §§ 11-8-4 and 11-8-5 are reflected by the more onerous burden placed upon the state to prove specific intent to commit a felony or other crime under those statutes. However, as a general-intent crime, all that is necessary for a conviction under § 11-8-5.1 is proof of an unlawful breaking and entry. The lesser burden placed upon the state under this statute is reflected in the lesser penalty attendant to the crime. Accordingly we find that the trial justice did not err in her instructions to the jury. Jeremiah also argues that § 11-8-5.1 is unconstitutionally vague because it contains no language regarding intent of the wrongdoer or consent of the occupant of the premises. It is well settled in this jurisdiction that a defendant in a criminal case cannot challenge the constitutionality of a statute in this court unless he has first raised the issue on the record before the trial court with particularity and clarity. State v. Lerner, 112 R.I. 62, 81, 308 A.2d 324, 337 (1973). A thorough review of the record reveals that Jeremiah failed to challenge the constitutionality of the statute before the trial court. Accordingly, we will not address that issue for the first time on appeal. Finally, Jeremiah asserts that he had the right under the lease to enter the premises. In the alternative, Jeremiah argues that he cannot be found guilty of breaking and entering premises that he owns. Under the terms of the lease negotiated by Stephen Casinelli and the previous owner of the property, Jeremiah succeeded to the right to enter the leased premises at all reasonable times. It is doubtful that in their negotiations either party intended that bursting through two locked doors, albeit during working hours, while wielding an ax and exhibiting generally uncontrolled behavior to be within the terms of the right to enter under the lease. Finally, the record discloses that there may have been a misunderstanding regarding the exact location of the area contemplated in the lease agreement. In his testimony, Jeremiah did indicate that the Casinellis wrongfully occupied a portion of Building no. 24. Nevertheless, it strains credulity to accept his contention that the office immediately behind the inner door to the leased premises was not properly occupied by the Casinellis. This area had been physically pointed out by the prior landlord and had been quietly enjoyed by the tenants for more than a year. Moreover, there is no indication that Jeremiah ever requested that the Casinellis abandon occupancy of the space perceived by Jeremiah to be in violation of the agreement or that Jeremiah ever took any legal action to evict the Casinellis from that space. Accordingly, the Casinellis as lessees and occupants of the premises could expect to be shielded from violent intrusions and particularly intrusions of the magnitude exhibited by Jeremiah. For the reasons stated, the defendant's appeal is denied and dismissed. The judgment of conviction is affirmed, and the papers in the case may be remanded to the Superior Court.