State v. Bronson
| Decision Date | 28 October 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 47200,47200 |
| Citation | 259 N.W.2d 465 |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. James Edward BRONSON, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. A building which had been used as a site for basketball games and which was being converted into an ice arena is a "building" within the meaning of Minn.St. 609.58, subd. 1(2), even though one wall had been removed at the time of the "burglary" of which defendant was convicted.
2. Cable of the same kind taken at the time of a "burglary" and found in defendant's apartment approximately 1 month after the taking sufficiently corroborated an accomplice's testimony to support a conviction.
C. Paul Jones, Public Defender, Robert Oliphant, Asst. Public Defender, Minneapolis, for appellant.
Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., Thomas L. Fabel, Deputy Atty. Gen., Joseph B. Marshall, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Robert A. Goldman, County Atty., Albert Lea, for respondent.
Considered and decided by the court without oral argument.
Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of a charge of burglary, Minn.St. 609.58, and was sentenced by the trial court to a term not to exceed 5 years in prison. Defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction and from an order denying his post-trial motion for a new trial. The issues raised by defendant are (1) whether the structure he was alleged to have entered was a "building" within the meaning of Minn.St. 609.58, subd. 1(2), and (2) whether there was sufficient evidence to corroborate the accomplice testimony of defendant's brother. We affirm.
In October 1975, construction crews were at work in Albert Lea converting a basketball arena into a community ice arena, a project which involved tearing out one wall, lengthening the structure, and installing ice-making equipment and piping in the floor. One morning in October the subcontractor who was hired to install the ice-making equipment discovered that 250 to 300 feet of cable for an arc welding machine had been taken from inside the arena.
It was the state's contention that defendant and his brother committed the crime of burglary by unlawfully entering the arena with the intent of stealing property. Defendant's brother, testifying under a grant of immunity, was the state's key witness. He testified that defendant and he entered the structure at night through the open west end where the structure was being lengthened, went to the north end where the cable was located, and took the cable. This testimony was corroborated by the introduction of 20 to 40 feet of cable seized from defendant's apartment pursuant to a search warrant in late November. An employee of the subcontractor that owned the stolen cable could not distinguish the cable introduced into evidence from the cable that had been stolen, testifying that "it looked the same or similar" and had the same kind of electrode clamp on the end.
The troubling issue in this case is whether the structure is a "building" within the meaning of Minn.St. 609.58, subd. 2. 1 If not, defendant was improperly convicted of burglary because one of the elements of the crime of burglary is that there be an entry of a "building."
Minn.St. 609.58, subd. 1(2), defines "building" as follows:
" 'Building' includes a dwelling or other structure suitable for affording shelter for human beings or appurtenant to or connected with a structure so...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Larsen
...406, 407 (Minn.1978) (holding that houseboat cabins were suitable for human shelter and therefore were buildings); State v. Bronson, 259 N.W.2d 465, 465-66 (Minn.1977) (concluding that basketball arena being converted to ice arena was a building, even though one wall had been removed when b......
-
Smith v. State
...covered with a roof on a concrete floor. There were sidewalls, but the ends were open. It was held to be a building. In State v. Bronson, 259 N.W.2d 465 (Minn.1977), building crews were converting a basketball arena into an ice-skating arena. In the course of the construction, a wall had be......
-
State v. Hicks, No. A07-1837 (Minn. App. 1/27/2009)
...capable of sheltering people from elements); State v. Vredenberg, 264 N.W.2d 406, 407 (Minn. 1978) (houseboat cabin); State v. Bronson, 259 N.W.2d 465, 465-66 (Minn. 1977) (basketball arena being converted to ice arena, with one wall removed); State v. Gerou, 283 Minn. 298, 302, 168 N.W.2d ......
-
State v. Hofmann
...of whether a structure is a "building" is whether the structure is "suitable for affording shelter for human beings." State v. Bronson, 259 N.W.2d 465, 466 (Minn.1977). Minnesota's appellate courts have applied this test consistently in determining whether various structures fall within the......