Court Opinion

ID: 9732765
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:34:17.127798+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:32.997398
License: Public Domain

FLAHERTY, Justice,
dissenting.
The issue is whether sufficient evidence supports appellant’s conviction of burglary for stealing scrap metal stored in an outdoor fenced lot. As described in the opinion of the court, appellant’s offense took place on industrial property in Philadelphia owned by Morris Iron and Steel Company, on which were two vacant burned-out buildings, a railroad track, and a lot partially enclosed by a chain link fence. The buildings had been vacant for months and the company had not carried on any operations at the location during that period. Various types of steel railroad equipment owned by the company were strewn about the fenced lot. A manager of the company had posted “keep out” signs on the fence, parked an old trailer truck against the inside of the gate giving access to the lot, and periodically inspected the property by driving past on the street outside the lot.
The majority concludes that appellant’s entry into the fenced lot and gathering the railroad steel into piles satisfy the elements of the grave offense of burglary. I do not agree.
Originally defined as breaking and entering an occupied dwelling during the nighttime with the intent to commit a felony therein, the common law offense of burglary has been expanded by statute so that it now prohibits entering an “occupied structure ... with intent to commit a crime therein.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 3502(a). An occupied structure, amazingly, *620is defined to include any “vehicle or place adapted ... for carrying on business therein, whether or not a person is actually present.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 3501.
Although the majority struggles to avoid the absurdity of such a definition, I cannot join in their interpretation. To state that an “occupied structure” may be any unoccupied place which is not a structure, so long as it is adapted for carrying on business therein, completely robs the words “occupied” and “structure” of meaning.
It is a fundamental rule that all provisions of a penal statute are to be strictly construed. 1 Pa.C.S. § 1928(b)(1). If we are to hold that an unoccupied nonstructure is an occupied structure because it is adapted for carrying on business, I would at least require that “carrying on business” involve more than the passive storage of rusting steel outside burned-out industrial buildings. Therefore I respectfully dissent.
ZAPPALA, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.