76 N.Y.2d 16 (1990)
For a burglary conviction, the element of unlawful entry or remaining requires proof that the defendant was not licensed or privileged to be on the premises, and this element is distinct from the intent to commit a crime within the premises.
Summary
Graves was convicted of felony murder predicated on burglary. The trial court instructed the jury that entering or remaining in a dwelling with the intent to commit a crime constitutes unlawful remaining, regardless of how the entry was made. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the instruction improperly merged the elements of unlawful entry and intent. The court reasoned that merely having a secret intent to commit a crime does not negate a licensed or privileged entry; there must be some deception or lack of permission for the entry to be unlawful. The court emphasized that the jury was not instructed to consider whether the defendant’s entry was obtained by deception.
Facts
Defendant Graves and Jones went to Finley’s apartment, where Smith, Finley’s girlfriend, was staying. Jones, Smith’s cousin, entered the unlocked apartment, spoke with Smith, and obtained permission to bring Graves inside. Instead of using the front door, Graves and Jones entered the apartment through a window with the intent to steal a stereo. During the theft, Smith awoke, a fight ensued, and Graves shot and killed Smith.
Procedural History
Graves was charged with second-degree murder (intentional and felony), first-degree burglary, and weapons offenses. He was convicted of felony murder, manslaughter (as a lesser included offense of intentional murder), and criminal possession of a weapon. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the felony murder conviction, ordering a new trial.
Issue(s)
- Whether the trial court erred in charging the jury that the “enter or remain unlawfully” element of burglary could be satisfied solely by proof of a secret intent to commit a crime within the premises.
Holding
- Yes, because the instruction improperly merged the separate elements of unlawful entry and intent to commit a crime.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals held that a person is guilty of burglary when they