State v. Crow
| Decision Date | 12 November 1974 |
| Citation | 517 S.W.2d 753 |
| Parties | STATE of Tennessee, Petitioner, v. Casper CROW, Respondent. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
R. Jackson Rose, Asst. Atty. Gen., Nashville, (R. A. Ashley, Jr., Atty. Gen., of counsel), for petitioner.
Frank L. Slaughter, J. Klyne Lauderback, Jr., Bristol, (Slaughter, Jackson & Pectol, Bristol), for respondent.
Casper Crow was convicted of third degree burglary and sentenced to not less than three nor more than four years. On his appeal, the majority of a panel of the Court of Criminal Appeals overruled all of his assignments of error, but raised of its own motion the question of whether or not there was any evidence of an entry, found none, and reduced the offense to attempt to commit a felony, to wit, third degree burglary. Judge Walker dissented. The State petitioned this Court for the writ of certiorari, assigning that action of the Court of Criminal Appeals as error. We granted the writ and have heard oral argument.
By statutory definition, third degree burglary is the breaking and entering into a business house, outhouse, or any other house of another, other than a dwelling house, with the intent to commit a felony. T.C.A. § 39--904.
Entry is an indispensable element in the crime of burglary, but, to prove entry, it is not necessary to show that the defendant's whole body made an entrance into the house. The following quote from Wharton's Criminal Law and Procedure, Anderson Edition, Sec. 421, states the law relevant to the present inquiry:
'Any penetration, however slight, of the space within the house by the defendant, or by any part of his body or by any instrument inserted for the purpose of perpetrating a felony therein, is a sufficient entry.'
Cases holding entry of the hand or an instrument to be sufficient to supply the element of entry, after breaking, to make out the crime of burglary, are cited in 13 Am.Jur.2d, Burglary § 10 and 12 C.J.S. Burglary § 10.
The evidence relevant to the issue of whether or not there was an entry in the instant case follows:
An officer of the Bristol Police Department, while on patrol about 2:20 A.M., on May 3, 1971, observed that the glass had been broken out of a door to the Volunteer Lounge. He got out of his patrol car and examined the door and found pry marks. He returned to his patrol car, reported the discovery of a break, and asked for assistance. He heard a noise behind him and turned and observed the defendant raising up from a bush approximately six feet from the door. Defendant had a tire tool in his right hand and started advancing toward the officer. The officer drew his pistol and told him to stop and drop the tire tool. Defendant threw the tire tool up in the bushes. The officer put his gun in his holster and told defendant to put his hands on the car; whereupon, the defendant reached for the officer. The two wrestled until a second policeman arrived. The defendant was wearing gloves at the time and, upon being searched, a screw driver and knife were found upon his person, and a flashlight was found either on his person or at the scene. The pry marks were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Brown
...scope, and caselaw from before that provision's enactment did not clearly answer the question either. See State v. Crow , 517 S.W.2d 753, 753–55 (Tenn. 1974).) Since Brown's view of this state definition would cover more than his generic definition of "entry," he concludes that Tennessee's ......
-
United States v. Yerkes
...scope, and caselaw from before that provision's enactment did not clearly answer the question either. See State v. Crow, 517 S.W.2d 753, 753-55 (Tenn. 1974).) Since Brown's view of this state definition would cover more than his generic definition of "entry," he concludes that Tennessee's d......
-
People v. Palmer
...v. Carter (1975), 236 Pa.Super. 376, 344 A.2d 899, rev'd on other grounds (1978), 482 Pa. 274, 393 A.2d 660, and State v. Crow (Tenn.1974), 517 S.W.2d 753, glass in or next to doors had been broken. In both cases, the courts reached the conclusion that the defendants' hands had intruded thr......
-
United States v. Buie
...1988 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 360, at *6 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 25, 1988) (emphasis added by the defendant)); see also State v. Crow, 517 S.W.2d 753, 755 (Tenn. 1974) (holding that the element of entry was satisfied in a third-degree burglary case, where the defendant had either "broke[n] the ......