Court Opinion

ID: 9784759
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 20:53:20.072747+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:35:58.761741
License: Public Domain

Elliott, J.,
dissenting: I dissent. Frankly, I cannot fault the realism and pragmatism of the majority opinion. But neither can I ignore the language of our burglary statute and the language and teaching of State v. Hall, 27 Kan. App. 2d 313, 3 P.3d 582, aff'd 270 Kan. 194, 14 P.3d 404 (2000).
In Hall, there was a building—K-Mart. In that building there was a subunit—a storeroom. Defendant entered the building with the implied permission of die owner. When defendant chose to steal property from the subunit, an essential element of burglary was missing. Hall may have been guilty of several crimes, “but one of them was not burglaiy.” 27 Kan. App. 2d at 319. In his concurring opinion, then Chief Judge Brazil urged tire legislature to “consider revising the burglary statute to bring it into line with modern realities.” 27 Kan. App. 2d at 319 (Brazil, J., concurring).
That was over 3 years ago. Thus far, the legislature has chosen not to change the language of K.S.A. 21-3715 (or K.S.A. 21-3716).
In affirming Hall, Justice Lockett quoted with approval the following from 27 Kan. App. 2d at 318-19:
“ ‘A broad construction of K.S.A. 21-3715 would blur the line between burglary and crimes such as shoplifting and criminal trespass. We are not free to adapt the statute defining burglary by construing it to fit a set of facts presented to us. The *47facts must support the crime as it is defined by the legislature. If the statute is to be changed, it must be changed by the legislature, not the courts.’ 27 Kan. App. 2d at 318-19.” 270 Kan. at 202.
In the present case, we have a building—a mall. In that building, there is a subunit—Dillards. Defendant entered the building, the mall, by the public entrance and, therefore, entered the building with the implied permission of the building’s owner. Accordingly, when defendant chose to steal property from the subunit, an essential element of burglary, as currently defined, was missing.
Further, in affirming Hall, the Supreme Court clearly discussed the problem with the current statute and gave the legislature citations to numerous examples from other states of how the statute might be amended. See 270 Kan. at 198-200.
Since the legislature has not responded to the Hall decision, that indicates to me the legislature is comfortable with Hall’s holdings.
It is for the legislature, not the courts, to clarify the conceptual definition of “building” to bring it into line with modem realities.
I would reverse.