Summary
The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed Francis L. Lampman’s burglary and petit-larceny convictions arising from his removal of roofing materials from a partially constructed house. The court held that Vermont’s burglary statute does not require a building or structure to have a completed roof, and that the jury instruction defining the term was legally adequate. The court also concluded that circumstantial evidence supported finding that Lampman entered the structure to remove the materials.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Vermont's burglary statute requires a building or structure to have a roof in order to qualify under 13 V.S.A. § 1201.
- Whether the trial court's jury instruction correctly defined building or structure and improperly relieved the State of its burden to prove that element beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Lampman entered a building or structure to remove the roofing materials.
Holdings
- A structure need not have a roof, be completed, or be fully closed in to qualify as a building or structure under 13 V.S.A. § 1201(a), provided it constitutes an enclosure that can be entered.
- The instruction was legally sufficient because it required the jury to find that Lampman entered a building or structure while explaining that the enclosure need not be completed, fully closed in, or covered by a roof.
- The evidence was sufficient to support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that Lampman entered the partially constructed house and removed the roofing materials from inside it.
Key quotations
“In sum, we conclude that a jury instruction that defines “building or structure” to include enclosures that lack a roof is consistent with the plain language of § 1201(a).” (¶ 15)
“These instructions framed the legal definition of “building or structure” to guide the jury’s assessment of whether this element was satisfied, but left the question whether defendant had entered a “building or structure” to the jury.” (¶ 23)
Factual background
A witness observed Lampman moving roofing materials between a partially constructed house and a portable toilet at a construction site at night, after which Lampman and his cousin loaded the materials into an SUV. The project manager testified that the materials had been stored inside the house under construction, where the house had framed walls, exterior wrapping, floors, dormers, and window and door openings, but lacked a completed roof, windows, and doors. Lampman admitted taking the materials but claimed they had been outside and that he never entered the house.
Procedural history
Lampman was charged with burglary and petit larceny based on his removal of roofing materials from a partially constructed house. The Superior Court, Grand Isle Unit, Criminal Division denied his motion to dismiss, rejected his proposed jury instruction concerning the statutory meaning of building or structure, denied his Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal and Rule 33 motion for a new trial, and the jury returned guilty verdicts on both charges. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed.