Court Opinion

ID: 9810310
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:46:08.29747+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:39:34.298327
License: Public Domain

Douglas, J.,
concurring in part. I concur, in the opinion except in so far as it relates to tbe defendants Mills and Gates. It appears from the evidence tbat Alexander’s bed-room was not in tbe main store building, but was in one end of an annex thereto, with a door leading into tbe other part of the annex, and a door from there leading into tbe main store-room. There was no opening direct from tbe bed-room into tbe store-room, which could be reached only by going through tbe other part of tbe annex. Both these doors were open, and in fact were rarely shut. I think tbat tbe defendants Foster and Johnston are guilty of burglary in the first degree in view of their entering Alexander’s bed-room in the manner tbey did. This seems to- me to'amount, to a constructive breaking, certainly more so than merely raising a latch or breaking a pane of glass for tbe mere purpose of reaching something through tbe window. On the¡ other band, even in the view taken by tbe majority of the Court, if there bad been no communication at all between tbe bed-room and the store-room, or if tbe inner door bad been fastened, merely entering the store-room would not have been burglary, but would have been breaking and enter*712ing a store-house, punishable under section. 996 of The Code. The defendants Foster and Johnston, were guilty of two crimes, store-breaking and burglary, the latter being in addition to the former and not necessarily dependent upon it. Here comes the point upon which I differ with the Court. I can not recall any evidence connecting Mills anid Gates with any crime except breaking into the store. They do not appear to have had anything to do with the murderous assault upon Alexander, or entering his bed-room. Suppose that Alexander had been securely locked up in Ms bed-room, and that Foster and Johnston, without disturbing him in any way, had merely broken into the store and stolen a piece of meat, would they have been guilty of burglary ? If they had not been guilty, those waiting outside could not have been guilty. Can we make aiders and abettors of one crime constructively guilty of another and distinct crime not within the contemplation of their original act ? We must carefully distinguish between the essential and the accidental facts of a case. The defendants. Mills and Gates were guilty as accomplices' in the crime of store-breaking, but I have very grave doubts whether they can be held guilty iu law of burglary, and sucb doubts I must resolve iu favor of human life.
There: are peculiar circumstances in this case which may tend to swerve our judgment. We are naturally indignant at the outrageous assault upon Alexander, whose splendid courage and manly devotion to duty command our admiration and respect; but vu should not let our feelings, blind our judgment. Those who committed the assault will pay. the penalty of their lives, but those who had nothing to do with it, and who. probably never contemplated any crime greater than that of theft, should be punished only for the offense of which they are guilty. If they are accessories before the fact to the burglary, and they were certainly not present when the bedroom was entered, then they are punishable under section 980 *713of Tbe Code, which provides that, “Any person whto shall be convicted as an accessory before the fact in either of the crimes of murder, arson, burglary or rape, shall be imprisoned for life in the penitentiary.”