Legal Definition of Burglary in Georgia
On the basis of witness statements that the defendant entered a store for lawful purposes and that the State showed that he entered the building with intent to commit theft, no evidence was presented that the defendant entered the premises for other illegal purposes; Accordingly, the defendant was not entitled to a jury order under section 16-7-21(b)(1) of the O.C.G.A. as a lesser crime of burglary. Moore v. State, 280 Ga. App. 894, 635 S.E.2D 253 (2006). The jury indictment, which states that a person commits a burglary if and without authorization enters another person`s building, is a reversible error, since the prosecution omits the necessary condition that the person must have entered someone else`s building “with intent to commit a crime or theft.” Brooks v. Staat, 146 Ga. App. 519, 246 S.E.2D 506 (1978).
Georgia`s burglary laws distinguish between three forms of burglary, first-degree burglary, second-degree burglary, and smash and grab burglary. Burglary is one of the most prosecuted crimes in Cherokee County, Pickens County, and North Georgia in general. Therefore, local prosecutors are very adept at prosecuting burglary cases. Prosecutors have many specific types of burglary charges that can be used against an arrested person. The jury received sufficient evidence to support the accused`s conviction for armed robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, criminal attempt to aggravate sodomy, and possession of a knife during the commission of a crime, as the victim`s testimony alone was sufficient to support the conviction; Despite any discrepancies in the victim`s testimony, it was up to the jury to assess the credibility of the witnesses, and the jury chose to believe that the victim had identified the accused as the person who committed the crimes. Williams v. State, 300 Ga. App.
839, 686 S.E.2D 446 (2009). – For the purposes of double material punishment, neither a conviction for burglary nor a conviction for murder constitutes a less serious offence in the other, since it is essential to provide evidence of additional elements to establish each offence. Species v. State, 258 Ga. 460, 368 S.E.2d 756 (1988). Each variant of burglary in Georgian law contains its own penalties with fairly severe maximum penalties. – The elements and culpable state of mind required for burglary and attempted armed robbery are different; The trial court did not err in refusing to summarize the accused`s convictions for burglary and attempted armed robbery when the facts proving each crime were different and neither crime was included in the other. Skaggs-Ferrell v.
State, 266 Ga. App. 248, 596 p.E.2d 743 (2004). The court`s failure to define rape in its indictment necessitated the quashing of the accused`s conviction for burglary, even though no application was made for such charges, when it was not possible to determine from the verdict “guilty of all three counts” whether the jury convicted the accused of burglary, which was based on entry with intent to commit an attack with a deadly weapon or an attack with intent to commit rape. Kelley v. State, 201 Ga. App. 343, 411 S.E.2D 276 (1991). – The evidence was sufficient to support the defendant`s conviction for burglary, as the jury ruled that the evidence of the defendant`s drunkenness did not refute intent. In addition to testifying that television cables were unplugged from various devices in the victim`s home, a witness testified that the television sat upright on the floor, not face down, despite the accused`s testimony that the accused had pushed the television out of the stand. Dillard v. Staat, 323 Ga.
App. 333, 744 S.E.2D 863 (2013). – There was sufficient evidence of intent to commit theft to convict the defendant of burglary under article 16-7-1 (a) of the O.C.G.A. Although nothing seemed to be missing in the victim`s apartment when he returned, electrical appliances that had been plugged in when the victim left were unplugged and left on a chair, and some movies that were in a closet when the victim left were found in a plastic bag on a chair in the living room. And the jury was allowed to infer the intent of the presence of valuables at the premises, the defendant`s possession of those valuables, and the defendant`s escape when discovered, because the defendant left quickly when the defendant learned that the police had been called. Westmoreland v. Staat, 281 Ga. App. 497, 636 S.E.2D 692 (2006). The defendant was not entitled to a criminal trespassing instruction as a lesser crime of burglary, because if the jury believed the state`s evidence, the defendant was guilty of burglary, and if the jury accepted the defendant`s defense of the crime, the defendant was not guilty of any crime. Stillwell v. Staat, 329 Ga.
App. 108, 764 S.E.2D 419 (2014). You can also be convicted of burglary if you were granted permission to enter a home through fraud, deception or false pretenses. For example, the Supreme Court of Georgia found a man posing as a potential home buyer guilty of burglary and stealing the house. Although he was allowed to enter the apartment, this permission was obtained by fraud, and the court ruled that his entry was not allowed. State v. Newton, 294 Ga. 767 (2014).
– if an indictment alleges intent to commit burglary as the purpose of the burglary, and if the indictment alleges, for the purpose of illustrating intent to steal at the time of the burglary and trespassing, actual theft after burglary and trespassing, no description, value or ownership of the property to be stolen, or were actually stolen after the burglary and entry, must be claimed. Grün v. Condition, 133 Ga. App. 802, 213 S.E.2d 60 (1975). – Sufficient evidence included the testimony of an accomplice (sufficiently corroborated under former § 24-4-8 of the O.C.G.A. (see now article 24-14-8 of the O. C.G.A.) through knowledge and use of the defendant`s grandparents` safety code) that the defendant hired an accomplice to kill the grandparent in order to convict him of burglary, assault and assault. Hügel v.
Staat, 268 Ga. App. 642, 602 S.E.2D 348 (2004). Since a defendant`s evidence that he acted on the basis of an error of fact in entering a house would have allowed the jury to acquit the defendant of burglary pursuant to article 16-7-1 (a) of the O. CGA, and because the charge laid did not properly inform the jury of the true nature of the defendant`s affirmative defence, the defendant was entitled to an indictment of error of fact under section 16-3-5 of the O.C.G.A. 289 Ga. 459, 712 P.E.2d 828 (2011). – the evidence was insufficient to support the defendant`s conviction for burglary by entering a mobile home intended to be used as a residential property without authorization and with intent to commit theft, since the State failed to prove that the particular mobile home into which the defendant entered was intended to be used as a residential complex pursuant to article 16-7-1 of the O. CGA; Rather, the evidence suggested that the camper was merely providing shelter and accommodation. Jenkins v.
Staat, 259 Ga. App. 47, 576 p.E.2d 44 (2002). Burglary allegations are not taken lightly in the state of Georgia. If you face burglary allegations, you are likely to face the following consequences: The defendant failed to meet its obligation to prove through the record that the trial court did not consider criminal trespassing under section 16-7-21(b) of the O.C.G.A. to be a less serious crime of burglary under section 16-7-1 of the O.C.A. C.G.A., since both the defendant and defence counsel accepted the criminal theory And the trial court expressly stated that it believed the victim`s testimony more than the accused`s. Joyner v.
State, 267 Ga. App. 309, 599 p.E.2d 286 (2004). – despite the defendant`s correct assertion that the trial court wrongly accused the jury that one of the factors to be taken into account in assessing the reliability of the testimony was the degree of certainty of the witness as to his identification, because there was evidence other than the victim`s identification of the accused that linked the defendant to the crimes of burglary, Aggravated sodomy and increased sexual violence, the mistake was harmless and convictions for the same were upheld. Bharadia v. State, 282 Ga. App. 556, 639 S.E.2d 545 (2006), cert. denied, No. S07C0522, 2007 Ga.
LEXIS 222 (Ga. 2007). The offence of burglary is distinct from sexual offences committed after an illegal entry into the premises and, therefore, the offences are not confused, although the evidence used to establish the sexual offences may also be used to prove the criminal intent required to prove the burglary. Palmer v. Staat, 174 Ga. App. 720, 331 S.E.2D 77 (1985). The defendant`s lawyer was not ineffective because he had not sought a charge of trespassing as a minor crime of burglary, since such an indictment would not have been supported by the evidence showing that the defendant had either the unlawful intent to commit theft or the legitimate intention to fall asleep again at a friend`s house. Dillard v. Staat, 323 Ga. App. 333, 744 S.E.2D 863 (2013).
– The intent required to commit a burglary pursuant to paragraph 16-7-1(a) of the O.C.G.A. does not need to be trained at the exact time of entry, but can be trained afterwards while the offender is on the scene. Hewatt v. Staat, 216 Ga. App. 550, 455 S.E.2D 104 (1995); Stephens v. State, 232 Ga. App. 738, 503 S.E.2D 643 (1998). The evidence was sufficient to try a child offender for the crime of adult burglary under the O.C.G.A.
