LEGAL ANALYSIS ASSIGNMENT

Task and Deadline

In this assignment, you are taking on the role of an associate at a law firm representing Shelley Moran, who has been charged with first-degree burglary. Review the materials in the assignment and draft a responsive memo. Submit your memo on Canvas by Monday, October 12, at 11:59 p.m.

Instructions

• You may not do any outside legal research. Your analysis must be limited to the factual and legal sources provided in the assignment.

. Your memo should only include a Discussion section.

• There is no word limit for this assignment. Organize your discussion using CREAC. Include page numbers.

• You will not be graded on citation form. However, you should provide a citation wherever appropriate. Because the cases have no page numbers, simply cite to them by referring to the first party’s name (e.g., Villalobos). For short-form cites, you may use “id.”

Using the cases set out after the problem, determine whether Jossery’s office is an “inhabited dwelling house” for purposes of a first-degree burglary conviction.

Background Facts

Mike Jossery (“Jossery”) is a successful criminal defense lawyer. He is known for his strong work ethic and diligence in defending every case. He works long hours at his office in the city and commutes home to the suburbs late in the eve­ ning. Jossery can be seen at all hours of the night working at his desk. His office is within a suite of offices on the 56th floor of a high-rise office building in the down­ town business district. Jossery shares the suite with other criminal defense lawyers. Those lawyers also work day and night, and the lawyers, clients, and witnesses are in and out of the offices at all hours. The suite of offices is open during business hours and locked at night. Jossery likewise keeps the door to his own office unlocked during the day and locked at night, including when he works at night. Cleaning crews work throughout the offices between about 8 p.m. and 10 p.m.

Before and during trials, Jossery works his hardest. He has even been known to sleep at the office. He does not like to do this, though, because the office does not have a bed or shower. In addition, Jossery has to go home and feed his three dogs. When he does sleep at the office, he sleeps on the couch inside his own office. He keeps a pillow, quilt, and slippers at the office for this purpose.

One evening over the Memorial Day weekend, Jossery was preparing for trial. He had planned to go out of town for the holiday, but an important case was about to go to trial. He cancelled his plans and started a marathon trial prep session. After a full day and evening of work, he became so tired that he could hardly look at his computer. He decided to take a break before reading some more cases. He lay down on his couch and closed his eyes. He had been sleeping for about an hour when he awoke to the sound of the office door closing. Apparently, one of his for­ mer criminal clients, Shelley Moran (“Moran”), had noticed during an office inter­ view that Jossery kept a magnificent antique clock in his office. She had heard that Jossery was out of town for the holiday, so she returned to the law office, picked the lock of both the suite and Jossery’s office, and stole the clock without disturbing Jossery.

When Jossery awoke, he looked around his office and was horrified to see that the clock was missing. He ran to his video surveillance cameras and reviewed the tapes. He recognized Moran immediately, and the tape clearly showed her carry­ ing the clock out of the office. Moran is being prosecuted for first-degree burglary. Is Jossery’s office an “inhabited dwelling house” for purposes of first-degree burglary?

The cases for this exercise are:*

• Villalobos v. State
• Fond v.State

Jason VILLALOBOS

v.

STATE

January 10, 2002

________________________________________

Defendant appeals his conviction for first degree robbery and burglary. He contends that an occupied motel room, such as that where this crime took place, is not an “inhabited dwelling house” as required for conviction of this crime.

On the evening of November 7, 2000, Roy Anthony Miller rented a room at the Peppertree Motel in Ontario. Miller was alone in the motel room for an hour or two, waiting for a friend. Miller heard a knock on the motel room’s door. Miller looked out the peephole, but did not see anyone. He then looked out the window and saw defendant Villalobos and another man standing to the side of the win­ dow. He had seen Villalobos before but did not know who he was.

Villalobos and the other man told Miller that they were going to rob him. The two men pointed knives at Miller and ordered him to the floor, but allowed him to lie on the bed instead. Villalobos searched Miller and removed $500-$700, a wallet and change from his pockets, and took his watch and a necklace.

Under this jurisdiction’s law of burglary, any burglary of an “inhabited dwell­ ing house” is burglary of the first degree. “Inhabited” means currently being used for dwelling purposes, whether occupied or not.

The issue before us is whether a motel room, which is rented on a transient or temporary basis, is “inhabited” within the meaning of those statutes. In order to determine whether, or when, an overnight lodging place qualifies as an inhabited dwelling, we must examine the principles underlying the first degree burglary law.

This jurisdiction’s burglary law stems from the common law policy of providing heightened protection to the residence. The peace of mind and security of the residents is sought to be protected, rather than the property. Burglary laws are based primarily upon a recognition of the dangers to personal safety created by the danger that the intruder will harm the occupants in attempting to perpetrate the intended crime or to escape and the danger that the occupants will in anger or panic react violently to the invasion, thereby inviting more violence.

A person is more likely to react violently to burglary of his living quarters than to burglary of other places because in the former case persons close to him are more likely to be present, because the property threatened is more likely to belong to him, and because the home is usually regarded as a particularly private sanctuary, even as an extension of the person. In keeping with the purpose of the

statute, the term “inhabited dwelling house” has been given a broad, inclusive definition. Thus, although an inhabited dwelling house is a place where people ordinarily live and which is currently being used for dwelling purposes, it need not be the victim’s regular or primary living quarters in order to be deemed an inhabited dwelling house. Rather, the inhabited-uninhabited dichotomy turns on the character of the use of the building.

The proper question is whether the nature of a structure’s composition is such that a reasonable person would expect some protection from unauthorized intru­ sion. Thus, a temporary place of abode, such as a weekend fishing retreat or even a jail cell may qualify.

People have an expectation of freedom from unwarranted intrusions into a room in which they intend to store their personal belongings, sleep, dress, bathe and engage in other intimate, personal activities. Obviously, whether one burglarizes a private home or a hotel room, there is a much greater possibility of confronting the resident and a substantial risk that force will be used and that someone will be injured, than if one burglarized a building that was not intended for use as habitation such as a warehouse.

We are at our most vulnerable when we are asleep because we cannot monitor our own safety or the security of our belongings. It is for this reason that, although we may spend all day in public places, when we cannot sleep in our own home we seek out another private place to sleep, whether it be a hotel room, or the home of a friend. Society expects at least as much privacy in these places as in a telephone booth-a temporarily private place whose momentary occupants’ expectations of freedom from intrusion are recognized as reasonable.

Of course, a motel room may be “occupied” for purposes other than use as a temporary dwelling, and thus not be “inhabited” for purposes of the burglary and robbery statutes. A motel can be rented as a place to transact business, licit or illicit. It is also not uncommon for people to rent motel rooms to conduct legiti­ mate business meetings or transactions. The rooms are “occupied” while these transactions or meetings take place, but they are not “inhabited” unless they are also being used as a place of repose. Here, it was undisputed that Miller intended to stay overnight in the motel room and to sleep there. In light of that evidence, Miller was using the motel as a temporary habitation. Affirmed.

_________________________________

Philip FOND

V.

STATE

April 5, 2000

___________________________________

On appeal of his conviction for first-degree burglary, Fond contends that a locked psychiatric hospital is not an inhabited dwelling house for the purpose of first-degree burglary.

On May 2, 1997, Birgit C. entered Oakwoods Hospital for treatment of depression and substance abuse. Fond was also a patient residing at the hospital. The next day when Birgit awoke from a nap in her room, she encountered Fond. Fond grabbed her purse and jewelry and ran out of the door. Fond contends that a psychiatric hospital is not an inhabited dwelling house for the purpose of first-degree burglary.

Under our law, every burglary of an inhabited dwelling house is burglary of the first degree. An inhabited dwelling house is a structure where people ordinarily live and which is currently being used for dwelling purposes. It need not be the victim’s regular or primary living quarters . The term “inhabited dwelling house” has been given a broad, inclusive construction.

Here, Birgit was assigned a hospital room in which she stayed overnight and in which she was staying at the time of the robbery. That is sufficient to make the room her dwelling house for purposes of first degree burglary. That her stay in the room was less than 24 hours, or that she had a roommate or that her room did not have locks on the inside does not detract from its status as a dwelling house.

Fond contends that the test for first degree burglary is whether a reasonable person would expect some protection from unauthorized intrusions. Fond argues that Birgit had no reasonable expectation of privacy. He points to evidence that the staff and other patients had access to her room.

No doubt Birgit expected the staff to enter her room for purposes related to her treatment. But there is no evidence she expected that the staff could use her room for their own purposes no matter how unrelated to the operation of the hospital. Thus she could reasonably expect to be free from unauthorized intrusions by the staff.

There was also evidence that Birgit had a reasonable expectation to be free from unauthorized intrusions by other patients. Sherri Lewitz, the hospital’s director of quality and risk management, testified that patients have an expectation of privacy and it is impermissible for other patients to enter their rooms. If a nurse saw another patient enter a room, the nurse would intervene and direct the patient out of the room. That the nursing staff failed to direct Fond out of Birgit’s room does not mean Birgit had no reasonable expectation of privacy.

The burglary of an inhabited dwelling is more serious than other types of burglaries because it violates the victim’s need to feel secure from personal attack. People simply need some place where they can let down their guard and where they can sleep without fear for their safety. It is difficult to imagine anyone with a greater need for a feeling of security than a patient in a psychiatric hospital. For such a patient a hospital room may represent a special place for repose.

Affirmed.