Vaidik, C.J.
The Indiana Supreme Court has held that walking through an open door does not satisfy the “breaking” element of burglary—but opening an unlocked door does. In this case, the defendant “rushed” a victim to gain unauthorized entry into a dwelling when the door was voluntarily opened for another person whom the victim was expecting. We find that “rushing” someone to gain unauthorized entry is sufficient evidence of force used. Thus, we affirm the defendant’s conviction for Class A felony burglary.
….
Anderson argues that there was no evidence of physical movement of a structural impediment that could be considered a “breaking” within the statutory definition for the crime of burglary. [Record citations omitted throughout.] The State responds that in order to establish that a breaking has occurred, it needs only to introduce “evidence from which the trier of fact could reasonably infer that the slightest force was used to gain unauthorized entry.” The State relies on the fact that Anderson and the other men “rushed” Jessica after coming through the open door, and argues that by running forcefully at Jessica, they used force to push their way into the apartment. We agree.
….
The Indiana Supreme Court addressed a similar factual scenario in Henley v. State, 519 N.E.2d 525 (Ind. 1988). In that case, the defendant knocked on the front door of the victim’s house. When the victim answered the door, … the defendant pushed the front door farther open against the victim and entered her house as she tried to close the door. … Accordingly, the Court found that the evidence was sufficient to prove a breaking because the defendant “used force to push the door farther open to gain entrance.” Id.
Here, … [a]lthough Anderson did not push the door farther open to gain access to the apartment like the defendant in Henley, Anderson, Collins, and Jones—who were hiding from view when Jessica opened the door—“rushed” Jessica after she let Alexis in. We find that this constitutes force used to gain unauthorized entry into Mounts’ apartment. Moreover, the action of barging in and jumping on Jessica can be seen as force used to gain unauthorized entry into the apartment. Like the victim in Henley, Jessica did not intend to let Anderson in. We therefore find that rushing someone to gain unauthorized entry into a dwelling is sufficient evidence of force. [Footnote omitted.] Because the evidence is sufficient to establish the breaking element of burglary, we affirm Anderson’s conviction for Class A felony burglary.
Affirmed.
Kirsch, J., and Bradford, J., concur.
The Indiana Supreme Court has held that walking through an open door does not satisfy the “breaking” element of burglary—but opening an unlocked door does. In this case, the defendant “rushed” a victim to gain unauthorized entry into a dwelling when the door was voluntarily opened for another person whom the victim was expecting. We find that “rushing” someone to gain unauthorized entry is sufficient evidence of force used. Thus, we affirm the defendant’s conviction for Class A felony burglary.
….
Anderson argues that there was no evidence of physical movement of a structural impediment that could be considered a “breaking” within the statutory definition for the crime of burglary. [Record citations omitted throughout.] The State responds that in order to establish that a breaking has occurred, it needs only to introduce “evidence from which the trier of fact could reasonably infer that the slightest force was used to gain unauthorized entry.” The State relies on the fact that Anderson and the other men “rushed” Jessica after coming through the open door, and argues that by running forcefully at Jessica, they used force to push their way into the apartment. We agree.
….
The Indiana Supreme Court addressed a similar factual scenario in Henley v. State, 519 N.E.2d 525 (Ind. 1988). In that case, the defendant knocked on the front door of the victim’s house. When the victim answered the door, … the defendant pushed the front door farther open against the victim and entered her house as she tried to close the door. … Accordingly, the Court found that the evidence was sufficient to prove a breaking because the defendant “used force to push the door farther open to gain entrance.” Id.
Here, … [a]lthough Anderson did not push the door farther open to gain access to the apartment like the defendant in Henley, Anderson, Collins, and Jones—who were hiding from view when Jessica opened the door—“rushed” Jessica after she let Alexis in. We find that this constitutes force used to gain unauthorized entry into Mounts’ apartment. Moreover, the action of barging in and jumping on Jessica can be seen as force used to gain unauthorized entry into the apartment. Like the victim in Henley, Jessica did not intend to let Anderson in. We therefore find that rushing someone to gain unauthorized entry into a dwelling is sufficient evidence of force. [Footnote omitted.] Because the evidence is sufficient to establish the breaking element of burglary, we affirm Anderson’s conviction for Class A felony burglary.
Affirmed.
Kirsch, J., and Bradford, J., concur.