Facts:
The defendant noticed that one of the occupants was doing
work on a fence at the residence and offered his services. Both agreed that he
would come back on Monday with a different paint for the fence and he was
informed that the occupant would not be home until after 6:00 pm. The other
occupant was home on Monday and aware that the Defendant would be coming to
paint the fence. The occupant heard persistent knocks and the doorbell ringing;
then she witnessed the Defendant at the sliding door, knock, walk away from the
door. Moments later she heard glass shattering. The occupant saw the Defendant
leave, she then discovered that the cellar window had been broken, called the
other occupant at work and told her she was “really scared” and instructed her
to come home. While on the phone, the Defendant returned and looked as if he
was painting the fence, moved out of sight and then noise was heard that
sounded as if someone had entered into the basement through the broken window. She
heard the footsteps come up the stairs and called 911 and on the phone reported
his appearance. A short distance away two police officers noticed him and held
him. The occupant who had hired the Defendant, identified him while he was
being detained.
Procedural History:
The defendant was found guilty “of breaking and entering
with the intent to commit a felony and with the resulting infliction of fear
upon a lawful occupant” in Hampden Superior Court.
Issue:
Did the court error in convicting the defendant?
Discussion:
No. The Defendant claims that the Commonwealth did not meet
their burden of proof in proving that he “intended to cause fear to the
occupant”. Looking at the relevant language in G.L. c. 266 §17 as quoted in the
opinion it states that “Whoever… breaks and enters in the day time, a building…
with intent to commit a felony, the owner or any other person lawfully therein
being put in fear, shall be punished...”. Usually when the evidence and its
sufficiency of bringing about a verdict are questioned the evidence is
considered in a light that would be more favorable to the prosecution and must
be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, in this case the intent to place the owner
or others lawfully in the building in fear does not have to be intended but
rather it must be the result of the acts the Defendant committed. Additionally,
courts usually use statues in a manner that does not contradict Common Law
unless it is explicitly attempting to change the statutory meaning; the common
law does not reflect the need of intent to cause fear in the occupant. This is
especially true when it involves a home. Lastly, unlike the case cited by the
defendant, this case does speak of the need to prove intent and thus does not
manifest a strict liability crime; his “intent to commit the crime will fairly
subject him to liability for its incidental but serious consequences.
Judgment:
Affirmed (DQ).
