CB People v. Davis - entry in burglary statute should not...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Fact: Operative Facts: Defendant walked up to a walk-up window of a check-cashing business. He opened up the chute in the window and dropped the check inside. The teller then made the defendant endorse the check with a thumbprint, and then found that the check was stolen. Teller called the police, and Defendant was arrested. Issue: Whether a burglary conviction could be placed on the defendant if it was a walk-up store, and there was no physical entry of the store. Rule: Entry with a tool would have to violate the occupant’s possessory interest in the building as does using a tool to reach into a building and remove property. Rational: When an ATM card is inserted into an ATM, there it does not constitute as a entry. The
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: entry in burglary statute should not be stretched beyond recognition. Holding: No a burglary was not committed, since no entry could be proven. Synthesis: Dissent/Concurrences: Dissent: Justice Baxter. States that the check was an actual entry, the because it went in the chute it was a breach. He emphasize that the check was an instrument used to trick the business to giving more money back. States that entry was easily seen. Also noted the Nible test of, public entry = not a unlawful entry, and used it against the court. Also notes, that there is a irony p. 343....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 10/18/2011 for the course CRIM LAW 110 taught by Professor Wade during the Spring '11 term at California Western School of Law.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online