State v. McKinney

2 Citing cases

  1. State v. Boone

    297 N.C. 652 (N.C. 1979)   Cited 47 times
    Holding that, despite the omission of "wrongful" in the felonious breaking or entering statute, the breaking or entering must be without consent

    We therefore hold, in accordance with an established interpretation in this state, that an entry with consent of the owner of a building, or anyone empowered to give effective consent to entry, cannot be the basis of a conviction for felonious entry under G.S. 14-54(a). We note in passing that there may be occasions when subsequent acts render the consent void ab initio, as where the scope of consent as to areas one can enter is exceeded, State v. McKinney, 21 Or. App. 560, 535 P.2d 1392 (1975), or the defendant conceals himself in a building until a time he is not authorized to be there in order to facilitate a theft, Levesque v. State, 63 Wis.2d 412, 217 N.W.2d 317 (1974). The state's evidence here established that defendant entered the store at a time when it was open to the public.

  2. Quinn v. State

    337 So. 2d 162 (Ala. Crim. App. 1976)   Cited 1 times

    Our Code (T. 14, § 85) still requires proof of breaking though modern statutes tend to delete it as an element of burglary. See State v. McKinney, Or.App., 535 P.2d 1392; also Ala. Law Inst. proposed revised Criminal Code §§ 2610-12 with commentary. BOOKOUT, J., concurs herein.