State v. Puckett

• Decision Date: 30 June 1913
• Citation: 95 S.C. 114,78 S.E. 737
• Parties: STATE. v. PUCKETT.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

(95 S.C. 114)

78 S.E. 737

STATE.

v.PUCKETT.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

June 30, 1913.

1. Burglary (§ 4^*)—What Constitutes.

As common-law burglary is the breaking and entering of the dwelling house of another in the nighttime with intent to commit a felony, it is not a burglary for accused to enter the piazza attached to a house, even though the piazza was protected by a balustrade and low picket gates used to keep out dogs and chickens; it not appearing that accused attempted to enter the dwelling proper or attempted to commit any felony therein.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Burglary, Cent. Dig. §§ 14-18; Dec. Dig. § 4.*

For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 1, pp. 908-911; vol. 8, p. 7593.]

2. Burglary (§ 11*) — Prosecution — Attempted.

An attempted burglary is indictable at common law.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Burglary, Cent. Dig. § 4; Dec. Dig. § 11.*]

Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Laurens County; Geo. E. Prince, Judge.

Rich Puckett was convicted of burglary, and he appeals. Reversed.

Ferguson, Featherstone & Knight, of Laurens, for appellant.

R. A Cooper, of Laurens, for the State.

WATTS, J. The defendant appellant was tried and convicted in the court of general sessions for Laurens county in January, 1913, on a charge of burglary. He was charged with breaking and entering the dwelling house of W. R. Richey in the nighttime, with intent of committing a felony, on September 22, 1912. After conviction, a motion for a new trial was made by appellant, which was overruled, and after sentence appellant appeals and alleges ten specifications of error on the part of his honor. The first five exceptions allege error on the part of his honor in overruling the motion for a new trial in that there was no testimony to sustain the verdict, as the evidence showed that the portion of the house entered was the piazza, unprotected and uninclosed, and was not such a place to be legally the subject of burglary, and there was no evidence that the defendant broke and entered a dwelling house as alleged in the indictment, and in holding that picket gates, in contemplation of law, put on the piazza outside of the house, constituted a protection or security to the habitation of the dwelling, when the evidence showed that the gates were not put there for any such purpose but to keep out dogs and chickens and in holding that under the indictment the appellant could be convicted of burglary in breaking out of said dwelling house when there was no evidence of such breaking, and for the further reason there was no evidence of any breaking or entering in the house to steal, no breaking out, and no evidence at all of any theft or other felony committed by the appellant in consequence of such entry. The ninth and tenth exceptions raise the point there was no evidence to sustain the verdict. The facts, as developed at the trial in brief, are: That the dwelling house of Mr. Richey is on West Main street, in the city of Laurens; that the house is surrounded on the front and on the east and west ends by a piazza, with balustrade 2 1/2 feet high. From the top of balustrade to the overhead ceiling of the piazza is an open space of 6 or 7 feet. On the front there was an opening on the piazza of 12 feet through the balustrade. On the east and west ends there was an opening of 8 feet from the back yard on each end of the piazza. There was a picket gate to each end, opening of the same height as the balustrade, leaving the open space above the ceiling. It was the custom to keep these gates closed to keep out chickens, dogs, etc. The evidence shows the defendant appellant was familiar with the premises. On the night in question it was damp and raining; during the night Puckett was...