People v. Clark
| Decision Date | 16 January 1979 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 77-3374 |
| Citation | 276 N.W.2d 527,88 Mich.App. 88 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kin David CLARK, Francis Clark, Larry A. Clark and Harold B. Clark, Defendants-Appellants. 88 Mich.App. 88, 276 N.W.2d 527 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[88 MICHAPP 89] George Stone, Southfield, for defendants-appellants.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Edward R. Wilson, Appellate Chief Asst. Pros. Atty., Paul C. Louisell, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before KAUFMAN, P. J., and V. J. BRENNAN and BASHARA, JJ.
Defendants appeal from a jury conviction of breaking and entering a building with the intent to commit larceny contrary to M.C.L. § 750.110; M.S.A. § 28.305; and possession of burglary tools in violation of M.C.L. § 750.116; M.S.A. § 28.311.
[88 MICHAPP 90] The facts in this case indicate that at approximately 12:20 a. m., a silent alarm at Uncle John's Pancake House was triggered. A patrol car dispatched to the scene stopped the defendants' car exiting the restaurant's parking lot. An inspection of the building revealed that a large hole had been broken through the wall from the boiler room into the restaurant kitchen.
The boiler room shared a common wall with the kitchen but had no direct access to the restaurant. Entrance to the boiler room was through two warped doors that could not be locked. The restaurant had been ransacked and the combination dial pried off the floor safe.
Defendants were arrested and a search revealed a screwdriver, flashlight, blue hexagon crowbar, a tire iron, wire cutters and black leather gloves. A state police lab report indicated the paint on the boiler room wall appeared identical to that found on the crowbar, and that marks left on the wall were the shape and color of the crowbar and tire iron.
The defendants claimed that car problems had forced them to pull off the road into the parking lot and that the tools in the car belonged to their father, who was a carpenter.
Defendants contend that the evidence presented was not sufficient to bind over or to support a conviction. However, a review of the record reveals sufficient evidence was presented at both the preliminary examination and trial.
In a criminal prosecution, all that is required is that the prosecutor introduce some competent direct or circumstantial evidence as to each element of the crime charged so as to support the jury's finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Meadows, 80 Mich.App. 680, 691, 263 N.W.2d 903 [88 MICHAPP 91] (1977), People v. Atley, 392 Mich. 298, 309, 220 N.W.2d 465 (1974). It is for the jury, not the court, to weigh the evidence. People v. Eastway, 67 Mich.App. 464, 469, 241 N.W.2d 249 (1976), People v. Palmer, 392 Mich. 370, 376, 220 N.W.2d 393 (1974).
Defendants' most interesting contention is that breaking an interior wall to enter the main part of a building after initially entering without breaking into the outer room is not a "breaking" as contemplated by the statute.
This issue seems to be one of first impression in Michigan. 1 Authority dictates that the slightest force is all that is necessary to constitute a breaking. Pushing open a door has been held to be sufficient force. People v. Davis, 22 Mich.App. 70, 71, 176 N.W.2d 715 (1970).
Testimony elicited at trial indicated that the warped boiler room doors showed no sign of forced entry. However, nothing in the record indicates whether the doors were closed prior to the entry and contradictory testimony was offered as to their position when the police arrived.
If the boiler room doors had been closed or even partially closed, opening them would constitute a "breaking".
Assuming, however, that the exterior doors were open, the hole broken in the interior wall still brings the facts of this case within the purview of the statute.
Other jurisdictions with similar statutes have [88 MICHAPP 92] held that a breaking of an inner portion of a building constitutes the requisite element for burglary.
In Bowie v. State, 401 S.W.2d 829, 831 (Tex.Cr.App.1966), the Texas Court of Appeals said:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Wise
...no matter how slight, is sufficient to constitute the breaking. People v. White, 153 Mich. 617, 117 N.W. 161 (1908); People v. Clark, 88 Mich.App. 88, 276 N.W.2d 527 (1979). Although the victims might possibly have left the door to their house open, we find this extremely doubtful. It is hi......
-
People v. Montague
...previously held that a breaking of an inner portion of a building constitutes the requisite element for burglary. People v. Clark , 88 Mich. App. 88, 91, 276 N.W.2d 527 (1979). Therefore, because defendant was not lawfully permitted to enter the storage room, his opening the door from the c......
-
People v. Bush
...lawfully enters the home, but then breaks into a room within the home to which he had no permission [to enter]." Citing People v. Clark, 88 Mich.App. 88, 91, 276 N.W.2d 527 (1979), People v. Toole, 227 Mich.App. 656, 576 N.W.2d 441 (1998), and People v. Mosher, unpublished opinion per curia......
-
People v. Bowyer
...trial to the prosecutor's remarks, and unless a miscarriage of justice would result, the issue cannot be raised now, People v. Clark, 88 Mich.App. 88, 276 N.W.2d 527 (1979), People v. Moncure, 94 Mich.App. 252, 288 N.W.2d 675 (1979). We find no miscarriage of justice in the present Defendan......