People v. Gaines, 74 N.Y.2d 358 (1989)
To be convicted of burglary in New York, a defendant must have intended to commit a crime at the time of unlawfully entering a building; intent formed after the unlawful entry is insufficient to establish burglary.
Summary
Gaines was convicted of burglary. The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury that, for a burglary conviction based on unlawful entry, the intent to commit a crime must exist at the moment of entry. The Court of Appeals held that the intent to commit a crime must exist at the time of unlawful entry. The Court reasoned that burglary is treated as a serious felony due to the heightened danger when someone unlawfully enters a building with criminal intent. The court reversed Gaines’s conviction because the jury instructions could have misled the jury.
Facts
Gaines was arrested while exiting a building supply company through a window. He was wearing coveralls and a jacket belonging to a company employee, with company pens in the jacket pocket. Inside, desks were in disarray, but nothing else was missing. Gaines testified that he entered the building to seek shelter from the cold and snow after finding his friend was not home. He claimed he put on the jacket and coveralls to stay warm and denied touching anything else.
Procedural History
Gaines was convicted of burglary at trial. He appealed, arguing that the jury instructions were inadequate. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. Gaines then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether, for a burglary conviction based on unlawful entry, the jury must be instructed that the intent to commit a crime inside the building must exist at the time of the unlawful entry.
Holding
Yes, because burglary requires contemporaneous intent to commit a crime at the time of unlawful entry; intent formed after the entry is insufficient.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized that burglary is considered a serious felony due to the heightened danger posed by an unlawful intrusion by someone with criminal intent. “A defendant who simply trespasses with no intent to commit a crime inside a building does not possess the more culpable mental state that justifies punishment as a burglar.” The court highlighted that the addition of “remains unlawfully” in the statute was intended to address situations where a person lawfully enters a building but remains after their authorization terminates (e.g., a shoplifter remaining after closing). The Court stated, “[t]he word ‘remain’ in the phrase ‘enter or remain’ is designed to be applicable to cases in which a person enters with ‘license or privilege’ but remains on the premises after termination of such license or privilege.” The court stated that the jury should have been instructed that they must find that he intended to commit a crime at the time he entered the premises unlawfully. Because the instructions given could have misled the jury into thinking that any illegal entry coupled with a subsequent crime constitutes burglary, the conviction was reversed.