People v. King, 61 N.Y.2d 550 (1984)

For the crime of burglary, entry into a building occurs when a person or any part of their body intrudes within the building, and a recessed entry area of a store, enclosed by display windows, a door, a roof, and a security gate, can be considered part of the ‘building’.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals held that the element of ‘entry’ in burglary is satisfied when any part of a person’s body intrudes into the building. The Court also determined that a recessed vestibule enclosed by display windows, a roof, and a security gate constitutes part of the ‘building’ for burglary purposes. The defendant was observed tampering with a metal gate covering a jewelry store vestibule, creating a hole. The Court affirmed the conviction for attempted burglary, finding that the defendant’s actions constituted an attempted entry into a building.

Facts

Two police officers observed the defendant in front of a jewelry store at 4:30 a.m. The store had a recessed vestibule behind a metal security gate. The officers saw the defendant crouched down, pulling and pushing at the gate while holding an object. After noticing the officers, the defendant fled. The officers apprehended him, and upon returning to the store, found that the gate had been cut, creating a one-foot square hole. The defendant had a claw hammer in his pocket.

Procedural History

The defendant was convicted of attempted burglary in the third degree and possession of burglar’s tools. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment without opinion. The case was then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the ‘entry’ element of burglary requires the intrusion of the entire body into the building?

2. Whether the recessed vestibule of the jewelry store constitutes a ‘building’ within the meaning of the Penal Law?

Holding

1. No, because the ‘entry’ element of burglary is satisfied when any part of a person’s body intrudes within the building.

2. Yes, because the recessed vestibule, enclosed by the security gate and other structures, is functionally part of the building under the Penal Law.

Court’s Reasoning

Regarding the ‘entry’ element, the court noted that while the Penal Law does not explicitly define ‘entry’, the common law definition, which requires only the insertion of any part of the body, should still apply unless there’s a clear legislative intent to change it. The court stated, “The presumption is that no change from the rule of common law is intended, ‘unless the enactment is clear and explicit in that direction’.” Since the legislature did not indicate an intent to narrow the definition of “entry,” the common-law definition was upheld.

As to whether the vestibule constitutes a ‘building’, the court referenced Penal Law § 140.00(2), which defines a building as including “any structure… used by persons for carrying on business therein.” The court reasoned that the presence of the security gate, enclosing the vestibule, makes the vestibule “functionally indistinguishable from the space inside the display cases or the rest of the store.” Therefore, it falls within the statutory definition of a building.

The Court emphasized that the defendant was in a position to reach into the vestibule and steal goods, and his inability to fit his entire body through the hole did not negate the attempted burglary charge. The court reasoned that a successful burglary was within his capability.