Court Opinion

ID: 9768665
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 13:42:55.01384+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:42.954859
License: Public Domain

*686DOUGLAS, Judge
(dissenting).
State’s Exhibit No. 6 shows a photograph of the building entered by appellant. V.T. C.A., Penal Code, Section 30.02, provides that a person commits an offense if he enters a building without the owner’s consent. Building is defined as “any enclosed structure intended for use or occupation as a habitation or for some purpose of trade, manufacture, or use.”
In the present case we have a building with four walls. The witness Varner testified that it was a building and “It’s completely enclosed, except for those three doors.”
From the photograph admitted into evidence, this is an enclosed structure. There being no doors to close does not keep it from being an enclosed structure. If there are doors to a structure or residence or business building that are open, is the majority holding that those buildings would not be enclosed? I would not require that there be doors on a building and that they be closed to fit the definition of a building under the code.
The proof in the present case is sufficient to show that the building was enclosed. The judgment should be affirmed.
MORRISON, J., joins in this dissent.