Court Opinion

ID: 9712005
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:44:12.456724+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:09.017327
License: Public Domain

DeBRULER, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
Appellant was convicted of attempted burglary. The necessary evidentiary showing was that, with the intent to commit a felony, appellant attempted a breaking and entering. The opening of the locked door was sufficient to qualify as an attempted breaking and entering. What is lacking is any evidence that the attempt was made with the intent to commit theft, as charged in the information.
As was explained in Gilliom v. State (1987), Ind., 508 N.E.2d 1270, there must be "some fact in evidence [which] point[s] toward an intent to commit a specific felony onee the perpetrator has entered the premises." Id. at 1271. There was no evidence presented in this case from which the jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant intended to commit theft once he gained entrance.
Appellant was arrested six days later in an apartment complex and the car that he was in contained handguns, prybars and an extra license plate. This in no way supports the conclusion that appellant intended to commit theft when he opened the locked door. Had the car contained items stolen in a burglary or had appellant and his accomplices been arrested stealing items from an apartment then this could cireum-stantially support a finding of intent to commit theft. However, as it stands, there is no evidence that theft was in fact what appellant intended when he opened the door.
The burglary conviction should be reversed and the handgun conviction affirmed. ©