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 breaking and entering for entering a home without permission by breaking a window. On the day before the Defendant's arrest, unauthorized entry into the home was gained through a dog door, and the back door's windows were intact. However, on the day of the arrest, the dog door was closed off, and the back door's glass windows were broken. Police found broken glass inside the Defendant's backpack, on the floor near the door, and a tire iron near the back door that was not present the day before. The homeowner confirmed the only damage was to the back door (paras 3-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction for breaking and entering, specifically contending there was no evidence he broke the window to gain entry (paras 2-3).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for breaking and entering, particularly whether the Defendant's entry was obtained by the breaking of a window (para 2).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction for breaking and entering (para 6).

Reasons

• The Court, comprising Judges Zachary A. Ives, Jennifer L. Attrep, and Shammara H. Henderson, reviewed the evidence under the standard that requires viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. The Court found that the jury was correctly instructed on the elements of breaking and entering, which included entering without permission and obtaining entry by breaking a window. The Court determined that the evidence, including testimony about the condition of the home before and after the Defendant's arrest, the presence of broken glass in the Defendant's backpack, and the discovery of a tire iron, was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. The Court declined to reweigh the evidence or consider hypotheses consistent with innocence, emphasizing that the jury found the hypothesis of guilt more reasonable. The Court also noted that the Defendant did not challenge the jury instruction nor requested a modified instruction that would require the jury to find he was the individual who broke the window. Thus, the Court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction (paras 2-5).