Pratt v. State
| Decision Date | 15 May 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 585,585 |
| Citation | 492 N.E.2d 300 |
| Parties | Glen A. PRATT, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. S 203. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Thomas A. Murto, Murto & Holbrook, Goshen, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Michael Gene Worden, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Appellant Glen Pratt was convicted after trial by jury of burglary, a class B felony, Ind. Code Sec. 35-43-2-1 (Burns 1985 Repl.), and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 20 years. In this direct appeal, he raises the following issues:
1. Whether the court erred in refusing his tendered instructions on the crime of burglary; and,
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
We affirm.
Indiana's criminal code defines the offense of burglary as follows:
A person who breaks and enters the building or structure of another person, with intent to commit a felony in it, commits burglary....
Ind. Code Sec. 35-43-2-1 (Burns 1985 Repl.).
The court so instructed the jury, refusing Pratt's tendered instruction which read:
To sustain the charge of burglary, the State of Indiana must prove ... that the defendant knowingly or intentionally broke and entered the dwelling ... with the intent to commit the felony of theft. [Emphasis added.]
Pratt claims the court's instruction was inadequate because it did not convey the notion that the breaking and entering must be a voluntary act of general intent. He argues it was error not to instruct the jury that burglary consists of an intentional breaking and entering coupled with the specific intent to commit a felony inside. Arguing that his use of alcohol on the day of the burglary rendered him incapable of forming the requisite intent to commit a crime, he claims the jury was not instructed on the essential element of mens rea.
The purpose of instructions is to inform the jury of the law applicable to the case in such a way that it will not be misled and will arrive at a just, fair, and correct verdict. Malo v. State (1977), 266 Ind. 157, 361 N.E.2d 1201. The jury was instructed as to the statutory elements of burglary, including the specific intent to commit a felony necessary to support a burglary conviction. We do not perceive how it could have been misled by the court's refusal to instruct that the breaking and entering element of burglary must also be an intentional act.
Keeping in mind Pratt's intoxication defense, we note that in order to prove burglary, the State was obligated to do more than demonstrate that Pratt was mentally capable of entertaining general intent to break and enter. Rather, the State had to prove that he was capable of and did entertain a more complex intellectual thought, specific intent to commit a felony once inside. Subsumed in the finding of specific intent is a finding of capacity for general intent to break and enter. One cannot be so intoxicated as to unintentionally break and enter and at the same time harbor the intent to commit a certain act inside. Proof of the specific intent is ipso facto proof that the breaking and entering was intentional.
We find no error here. The court properly instructed the jury.
Pratt argues the evidence was insufficient to convict him of burglary. We will neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Loyd v. State (1980), 272 Ind. 404, 398 N.E.2d 1260. Looking only to the evidence most favorable to the State, we will not disturb a judgment of conviction where the trier of fact heard substantial evidence of probative value on each element of the crime charged. Williams v. State (1982), Ind., 433 N.E.2d 769.
The State established that on April 8, 1984, the residence of Paul Stoltzfus was broken into and several guns were stolen. State's witness Burley testified that he and Pratt spent that day drinking heavily and smoking marijuana. The topic of discussion eventually turned to means of "making" money. Burley was a neighbor of the Stoltzfuses and, knowing they were out of town, he suggested burglarizing their residence. Pratt agreed.
Burley testified that he removed the screen from a window and that Pratt broke the glass to gain entry. Pratt...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hahn v. State
...discovery inside premises but had committed another burglary and consummated theft from nearby residence shortly before); Pratt v. State (1986) Ind., 492 N.E.2d 300 (guns removed from burglarized premises in possession of defendant); Dziepak v. State (1985) Ind., 483 N.E.2d 449 (residence r......
-
Johnson v. State
...common law definition when it constructed the statutorily proscribed offense of burglary, as we conclude it did, see Pratt v. State (1986), Ind., 492 N.E.2d 300, 301 (specific intent to commit a felony more complex thought than general intent to break and enter), there is no logical incongr......
-
Gilliam v. State
...or intentionally broke and entered the building or structure with the intention to commit a certain felony therein. Pratt v. State (1986), Ind., 492 N.E.2d 300; Easton v. State (1967), 248 Ind. 338, 228 N.E.2d 6. To constitute a criminal attempt, the actor must have knowingly or intentional......
-
Vincent v. State
...intent to commit a felony once inside the structure is ipso facto proof that the breaking and entering was intentional. Pratt v. State (1986), Ind., 492 N.E.2d 300, 302. The only difference between residential entry and residential burglary is the element of intent to commit a felony therei......