Riley v. State, 48206
| Decision Date | 11 October 1973 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 1,No. 48206,2,3,48206,s. 1 |
| Citation | 130 Ga.App. 181,202 S.E.2d 533 |
| Parties | Robert N. RILEY v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Michael J. Kovacich, Decatur, for appellant.
Richard Bell, Dist. Atty., Hardaway Young, III, Decatur, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The defendant was indicted for burglary. The indictment charges that the defendant 'without authority and with intent to commit a theft therein' did 'enter the building' of the Emory University Clinic.
A state's witness testified that in the early afternoon hours of August 10, 1972, when returning to his office in the Emory University Clinic, he passed by another office which was open and saw the defendant in this office with his hand in a pocketbook which was located on a desk; that he asked defendant if he could assist him; that defendant responded that he wanted to see Dr. Smith; and the witness advised that he would try to help defendant locate Dr. Smith. This witness and the defendant then went to the assistant manager's office. While there, the defendant was confronted by Dr. Smith and the latter advised in the defendant's presence that he had no reason to see him. Another state's witness testified that about this time he observed someone in his secretary's office which was directly across the hall. He asked this individual, whom he could not identify at the trial, if he could assist him and the person responded that he was looking for Dr. Smith and he pointed up the hall and left. Another state's witness testified that Dr. Smith, a dentist, primarily sees dependents of the staff, but that he does see private patients. A witness, who was the owner of the pocketbook, testified that the contents of the purse was of a value of about ten dollars; that she did not give permission for the defendant to enter her office or to remove the contents of her purse. The defendant testified that at 2:30 in the afternoon of the day in question he rode a bus to Emory University to see Dr. Smith; 'got off' and walked into the clinic through the front entrance. At the conclusion of state's evidence the counsel for defendant made a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal of the crime of burglary, which was overruled. Defendant appeals. Held:
Code Ann. § 26-1601 specifies in part that the offense of burglary is committed when one enters or remains in a building or any room or any part thereof, without authority and with intent to commit a theft. The intent to commit theft is shown when the defendant was caught, if not red-handed, at least with his hand gloved by the pocketbook of another, obviously in the act of extracting its contents. The testimony in this case showed that the room in which the defendant was found was part of a clinic not open to the public, in which, aside from staff, only referral patients and private patients had right of entry. Defendant contended he had come to see a Dr. Smith, but on being confronted by Dr. Smith, who denied any knowledge of defendant, he attempted to escape. This testimony was sufficient to show that he was in the clinic without authority.
Some of our brethren on this court have suggested that there is not a shred of evidence in this record which would authorize a finding that he entered the building without authority.
This was a semi-public building with many rooms, and defendant was found in one of those rooms with his hands in the pocketbook of another. Upon being accosted, he gave a false reason for his presence, to wit, that he wished to see Doctor Smith. What more was needed to convict him of burglary? Simply because the doors to the lobby of a building may be open, may one enter the lobby, and thereafter use this legal entry to the lobby to defend against burglary committed in one of the rooms of the building? What protection have occupants of a hotel against burglary under this construction? Anyone may enter the hotel building legally.
Did he enter the room without authority? Did he have the intent to commit a theft? He was found with his hand in the pocketbook of another, and falsely stated his reason for being there was that he wanted to see Doctor Smith. What more was needed to convict him of burglary? Absolutely nothing!
But, it is suggested that the indictment charged the defendant with entering a building and not with entering a room; and that he was shown to have entered the building legally, and therefore, cannot be convicted of entering the room without authority. Why not? The room was a part of the Emory University Clinic building. Proof that defendant entered any part of the building without authority and with intent to commit a theft fully satisfies the terms of the statute, to wit, Code Ann. § 26-1601, which statute is couched in the following language, to wit: '. . . or enters or remains within any other building or any room or any part thereof.' (Emphasis supplied.) Thus, a defendant who is charged with burglary in that he, with intent to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gilbert v. State, 71412
...he committed an unauthorized entry or that he remained in the building with the intent to commit that felony. Accord Riley v. State, 130 Ga.App. 181, 202 S.E.2d 533 (1973). See also OCGA § 16-7-1; Dixon v. State, 165 Ga.App. 133(2), 299 S.E.2d 608 Judgment affirmed. McMURRAY, P.J., and BENH......
-
Dixon v. State
...Burglary is committed when one, without authority, enters any building or room or part thereof. Code Ann. § 26-1601; Riley v. State, 130 Ga.App. 181, 182, 202 S.E.2d 533. The evidence in this case shows that the room, though small, was a room for the exclusive use of limited authorized pers......
-
Streeter v. State
...authority rifled through areas and rooms which were not opened to the public at any time, and this was burglary”); Riley v. State, 130 Ga.App. 181, 182, 202 S.E.2d 533 (1973) (under applicable statute, defendant charged with entering a certain building may be convicted of burglary upon proo......
-
Thomas v. State, 55907
...had entered the manager's office without authority and with the intention to commit a theft. See Code Ann. § 26-1601; Riley v. State, 130 Ga.App. 181, 202 S.E.2d 533 (1973); Mayfield v. State, 141 Ga.App. 483(2), 233 S.E.2d 833 3. It was not error to allow into evidence a photograph depicti......