State v. Burgoyne hinges on the definition of burglary:
Any person, having the intent to commit a felony, assault or theft therein, who, having no right, license or privilege to do so, enters an occupied structure . . . not being open to the public . . . commits burglary.
Burgoyne testified that he'd arrived at his former employer's office building very early on April 1, intending to ask for his job back. He found the back door unlocked, and testified that he assumed someone must be inside. No one was, so he waited. Burgoyne admitted that after a while he grew impatient and angry, and broke out an office door window and took $200.00 as well as some other items of nominal value. At the end of the evidence, the Court instructed the jury on the law. Instruction #12 provided:
The State need only prove the defendant formed the intent to commit a theft at some time while he was unlawfully on the premises.
Not so much. As the Court of Appeals pointed out, they needed to find he'd had the intent when he entered the building.
State v. Gaston reiterates the idea that the plea colloquy is not a collection of magic words, but rather an explanation of the concepts of fundamental rights to the defendant in order to ensure the defendant understands what rights are being waived. The defendant requested her conviction and sentence be vacated because the trial court allegedly failed to advise her she was waiving her right to confront witnesses against her. A review of the record indicated that the words "confront" and "confrontation" were never used, but the Court found it sufficient that the colloquy advised her that she was giving up her right, through her attorney, “to cross-examine witnesses” and “to object to potential exhibits.”
No comments:
Post a Comment