Court Opinion

ID: 9851178
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:08:34.389536+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:50.613843
License: Public Domain

*60Judge HEDRICK
dissenting.
As pointed out by the majority, the trial judge, “[f]ollowing extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law, . . . allowed the motions to quash and dismiss the indictments.” The findings of fact merely detailed the procedure leading to the order and reiterated the allegations contained in the bills of indictment and the bills of particular, but under the section denominated “conclusions of law,” the trial judge elucidated on the rules of construing criminal statutes, divining legislative intent, the history of G.S. § 14-54, the definitions of various words and phrases in the statute and particularly the word “structure,” other statutes under which the defendants might have been prosecuted, the decisions in other jurisdictions relating to similar statutes, and even a law review article discussing statutory burglary and entitled The Magic of Four Walls and a Roof. The majority opinion appears to draw heavily from the trial judge’s ruminations, and in so doing, gives tacit approval not only to the procedure but to all of the substance contained in the section of the order characterized as “conclusions of law.” While I do not disagree with the rules discussed by the trial judge and the majority, I cannot agree with the procedure and the application of those rules in the present case.
Although G.S. § 14-54(c) defines a building to include “any other structure designed to house or secure within it activity or property,” the majority, asserting, “This is a case of first impression . . .,” uses Webster’s Third New International Dictionary’s definition of building in concluding that the bills of indictment fail to charge defendants with an offense under G.S. § 14-54. An appropriate definition of “structure” is found in Watson Industries, Inc. v. Shaw, 235 N.C. 203, 69 S.E. 2d 505 (1952): “A ‘structure’ is ‘something constructed or built.’ . . .; that which is built or constructed; an edifice or a building of any kind; in the widest sense any product or piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts and joined together in some definite manner.” Id. at 207, 69 S.E. 2d at 509. [Citations omitted.] The majority, in my opinion, focuses too much on the physical composition of a limited part of the “fenced-in area,” and too little on the whole enclosure and its manifest purpose. To the majority, a roof is a determinative factor. The majority opinion indicates that a “fenced-in area” with a *61roof is a structure within the meaning of the statute, and an area enclosed with four massive walls but with no roof is not.
A five and a half foot chain link fence comprises the north and east walls of the enclosure, and an extension of the same fence comprises only a portion of the south and west walls. The remainder of the south and west walls of the enclosure is comprised of the sixty and forty foot walls of a “metal building.” The south and west walls of the “metal building” are extensions of the fence making the enclosure, and, conversely, the chain-link fence is merely an extension of the walls of the metal building. Significantly, the record before us does not disclose whether any portion of the compound, including the “metal building,” is covered with a roof. It is obvious from the record, however, that the compound is “designed to house or secure within it . . . activity or property.” Surely, the compound described in the bills of indictment and the bills of particular is a structure within the meaning of G.S. § 14-54(c), and one who breaks or enters such an area can at least be indicted and put on trial for more than misdemeanor trespass. I vote to reverse.