{"id":733,"date":"2012-08-03T19:02:21","date_gmt":"2012-08-03T19:02:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/?page_id=733"},"modified":"2023-09-25T20:08:11","modified_gmt":"2023-09-25T20:08:11","slug":"burglary","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/?page_id=733","title":{"rendered":"Burglary"},"content":{"rendered":"<ul>\n<li>CR23-101.\u00a0 <a href=\"http:\/\/www.vtjuryinstructions.org\/criminal\/MS23-101.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Occupied Dwelling<\/a>, 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 1201 (06\/20\/14)<\/li>\n<li>CR23-151.\u00a0 <a href=\"http:\/\/www.vtjuryinstructions.org\/criminal\/MS23-151.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Other Building or Structure<\/a>, 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 1201 (02\/28\/08)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><strong>Reporter&#8217;s Note<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">After considering an ambiguity in the statute, the committee concludes that the term \u201coccupied dwelling\u201d means that the building is used as a place of residence.\u00a0 Accordingly, the State need not prove that someone was physically present in the building at the time of the entry.\u00a0 Resolving the ambiguity is a matter of statutory construction.\u00a0 The Vermont statute, \u00a7 1201, classifies buildings or structures according to whether or not they are occupied dwellings.\u00a0 There is no alternative category consisting of \u201cunoccupied dwellings.\u201d\u00a0 Under these circumstances, the committee agrees with the following interpretation by the Michigan Court of Appeals:<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 80px; text-align: justify;\">\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Under Michigan law, a residence need not in fact be occupied when the offense takes place in order for the offense to constitute a breaking and entering of an occupied dwelling. . . .\u00a0 Any dwelling house habitually used as a place of abode, whether or not an occupant is physically present at the time of the breaking and entering, is an occupied dwelling within the meaning of the statute under which defendant was convicted.\u00a0 When an inhabitant intends to remain in a dwelling as his residence, and has left it for a temporary purpose, such absence does not change the dwelling into an unoccupied one in the eyes of the law.\u00a0 The intent to return following an absence controls; the duration of the absence is not material. . . .<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><u>People v. Traylor<\/u>, 298 N.W.2d 719, 722 (Mich. App. 1980) (citations omitted).\u00a0 <em>See also<\/em>\u00a0<u>People v. Abarrategui<\/u>, 761 N.Y.S.2d 632, 634 (N.Y. A.D. 2003) (hotel was a \u201cdwelling\u201d for purposes of the burglary statute, even if no guests were physically present); <em>cf<\/em>. <u>State v. Jones<\/u>, 2011 VT 90, \u00b6\u00a013, 190 Vt. 586 (\u201cthe elements of burglary of an occupied dwelling are satisfied regardless of whether the occupants are awake or asleep, and regardless o[f] whether there is any direct interaction between the burglar and the victims\u201d).\u00a0 In a case reaching a different result, the statute distinguished between an \u201cinhabited dwelling house\u201d and an \u201cuninhabited dwelling house.\u201d\u00a0 Given that distinction, the Alabama Supreme Court held that an \u201cinhabited dwelling house\u201d requires the physical presence of an occupant in the building.\u00a0\u00a0<u>Reeves v. State<\/u>, 16 So.2d 699 (Ala. 1943).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">A \u201cbuilding or structure,\u201d for purposes of the burglary statute, need not have a roof. <u>State v. Lampman<\/u>, 2017 VT 114, \u00b6 15, 206 Vt. 323 (concluding that \u201ca jury instruction that defines \u2018building or structure\u2019 to include enclosures that lack a roof is consistent with the plain language of \u00a7 1201(a)\u201d).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>CR23-101.\u00a0 Occupied Dwelling, 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 1201 (06\/20\/14) CR23-151.\u00a0 Other Building or Structure, 13 V.S.A. \u00a7 1201 (02\/28\/08) Reporter&#8217;s Note After considering an ambiguity in the statute, the committee concludes that the term \u201coccupied dwelling\u201d means that the building is &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/?page_id=733\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":460,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-733","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/733","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=733"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/733\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1717,"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/733\/revisions\/1717"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/460"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=733"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}