Opinion ID: 853151
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Sufficiency of the Burglary Evidence

Text: Davis asserts that because Bentzler opened the door, there was insufficient evidence to support the breaking element of burglary. The State responds by arguing that a breaking occurred when Davis forced the door open. Burglary occurs when a person breaks and enters the building or structure of another person, with intent to commit a felony in it. Ind.Code Ann. § 35-43-2-1 (West 1998). Using even the slightest force to gain unauthorized entry satisfies the breaking element of the crime. Trice v. State, 490 N.E.2d 757 (Ind.1986). For example, opening an unlocked door or pushing a door that is slightly ajar constitutes a breaking. Utley v. State, 589 N.E.2d 232 (Ind.1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1058, 113 S.Ct. 991, 122 L.Ed.2d 142 (1993). The State supported Davis' burglary charge with the testimony of both Bentzler, the burglary victim, and Jenks, Davis' accomplice. Bentzler testified: I'm going to open up the door a little bit `cause they're going to get in somehow or another and I was going to hold my gun out like this, which I did, and let them know that I've got a gun.... As soon as I opened the door, I didn't even get that full sentence out. Before I even got probably half that sentence out, the door come smacking into my head and knocked me back to my wall and [Davis] had me pinned up to the wall and was struggling to get the gun out of my hand. (R. at 271-72.) In addition, Jenks testified that a struggle ensued as the door was cracked open. (R. at 449-50.) This evidence allowed a reasonable inference that Davis used force to gain entry. Consequently, the evidence was sufficient to support a burglary conviction.