AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was convicted of aggravated burglary (based upon a battery) and larceny. The incident involved the Defendant removing items from a trailer and placing them in his car. An altercation occurred at the Defendant's car, after the burglary was complete, involving the Defendant and the victim, who had witnessed the Defendant taking items from the trailer. Although the Defendant initially placed items in his vehicle worth more than five hundred dollars, he only deprived the victim of two propane tanks worth forty dollars and tools of an undetermined value, leaving the remainder of the items in the yard.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for aggravated burglary, as the battery did not occur while he was inside or entering or leaving the trailer, but rather after the burglary was complete. Also contended that there was insufficient evidence for his larceny conviction because he did not intend to permanently deprive the victim of all items removed from the trailer, as evidenced by leaving some items in the yard (paras 2, 5).
• Appellee: Maintained that there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions for both aggravated burglary and larceny, arguing that the Defendant's actions met the statutory requirements for these offenses (paras 1, 4, 5).

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for aggravated burglary.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for larceny.

Disposition

• The Court affirmed the Defendant's convictions for aggravated burglary and larceny.

Reasons

• Per VANZI, J. (BOGARDUS and MEDINA, JJ., concurring): The Court rejected the Defendant's argument that there was insufficient evidence for his aggravated burglary conviction, holding that the altercation occurring after the burglary but on the premises still fell within the scope of "leaving" the scene of the burglary as per State v. Romero. The Court also held that the Defendant's narrow interpretation of the aggravated burglary statute was inconsistent with the statute's aim to protect people from physical injuries sustained during burglaries. Regarding the larceny conviction, the Court found that the jury could infer the Defendant's intent to permanently deprive the victim of the property from the facts and circumstances of the case, noting that moving property with intent to permanently deprive qualifies as larceny, regardless of whether the property was moved a far distance (paras 3-6).