Some statutes dispense altogether with the necessity for a breaking, and make it burglary to enter without breaking, if the entry is with felonious intent.56 § 464. What constitutes a breaking. In the law of burglary the word "breaking" is used in the sense of the removal of impediments to passage.57 And any removing or putting aside of some Pennsylvania. Rolland v. Com., 85 Pa. St. 66. West Virginia. State v. Ringer, 84 W. Va. 546, 100 S. E. 413. Wisconsin. Nicholls v. State, 68 Wis. 416, 32 N. W. 543. A breaking is not necessary under a statute providing "every person who breaks or enters," etc., State v. Vierck, 23 S. D. 166, 120 N. W. 1098, 139 Am. St. Rep. 1040; State v. McBryde, 97 N. C. 393, 1 S. E. 925; or every person "who enters," without any words qualifying the character, kind, time, or manner of the entry, except as to the intent. People v. Brittain, 142 Cal. 8, 75 Pac. 314, 100 Am. St. Rep. 95; People v. Barry, 94 Cal. 481, 29 Pac. 1026. And see State v. Curtis, 116 La. 749, 41 So. 58. In some states there must be both a breaking and entering if the offense is committed in the daytime, but an entry without a breaking is sufficient if the offense is committed in the nighttime. State v. Hall, 168 Iowa 221, 150 N. W. 97; State v. Neddo, 92 Me. 71, 42 Atl. 253; Nicholls v. State, 68 Wis. 416, 32 N. W. 543, 60 Am. Rep. 870. In Arkansas either a breaking or an entry is sufficient, but one or the other must be shown. Pinson v. State, 91 Ark. 434, 121 S. W. 751; Minter v. State, 71 Ark. 178, 71 S. W. 944. In Illinois it is burglary to enter without force, the doors or windows being open. Brennan v. People, 110 Ill. 535. In North Carolina it is a misdemeanor to enter a dwelling house in the nighttime otherwise than by breaking. State v. Hughes, 86 N. C. 662. In Texas actual force of some sort is essential. Cox v. State, 81 Tex. Cr. 90, 194 S. W. 138; Burke v. State, 5 Tex. App. 74. If the entry is made in the daytime there must be an actual breaking. Summers v. State, 9 Tex. App. 396. But entry through an unusual place of entrance is sufficient to constitute burglary in the nighttime, as, for example, entry through an open window, Alexander v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. 359, 20 S. W. 756; Murmutt v. State (Tex. Cr.), 67 S. W. 508; or through a transom over a door. Holland v. State, 47 Tex. Cr. 623, 85 S. W. 798. See also Russell v. State, 86 Tex. Cr. 587, 219 S. W. 835. 57 State v. O'Brien, 81 Iowa 93, 46 N. W. 861; People v. Toland, 217 N. Y. 187, 111 N. E. 760, rev'g 165 App. Div. 795, 151 N. Y. Supp. 482. Any act of physical force, however slight, by which an obstruction to entering is forcibly removed, is suffi thing material which constitutes a part of the house, and which is relied upon as security against intrusion, constitutes a breaking 58 provided enough is done to make an entry possible without additional effort.59 Some force must be used, but the slightest force is sufficient.60 And it is not necessary that any injury be done to the building.61 There must be a breaking of some part of the house itself. It is not burglary to break through an outside gate or fence which forms no part of the house, and then enter the house through an open door or window,62 or to enter, through a gate, an outside piazza attached to a house.63 Nor is it burglary to enter a house without breaking, and then break something in the house which forms no part of it, as a trunk, or a chest, or a cupboard; and it can make no difference, in cient. Metz v. State, 46 Neb. 547, 65 N. W. 190; Com. v. Mackey, 171 Ky. 473, 188 S. W. 676. Actual breaking means the making of an opening or mode of entrance into a building by force. Minter v. State, 71 Ark. 178, 71 S. W. 944. 58 Carter v. State, 68 Ala. 96. And see Com. V. Stephenson, 8 Pick. (Mass.) 354. 59 There is no breaking where a strip holding a window in place is pried loose, but the window is left in place and no opening is made into the interior of the building. Gaddie v. Com., 117 Ky. 468, 78 S. W. 162, 111 Am. St. Rep. 259. Or where slats on the outside of a window are removed, and tacks and putty are removed from the window sash, but the glass of the window remains in place. Minter v. State, 71 Ark. 178, 71 S. W. 944. Or where the outside shutters of a window are broken open, leaving the window intact. State v. McCall, 4 Ala. 643, 39 Am. Dec. 314. 60 Alabama. Carter v. State, 68 Ala. 96. Arkansas. Minter v. State, 71 Ark. 178, 71 S. W. 944. Delaware. State v. Manluff, Houst. Cr. Cas. 208. Kentucky. Collins v. Com., 146 Ky. 698, 143 S. W. 35, 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 769. Ohio. Goins v. State, 90 Ohio St. 176, 107 N. E. 335, L. R. A. 1915 D 241; Timmons v. State, 34 Ohio St. 426, 32 Am. Rep. 376. Texas. McNew v. State, 84 Tex. Cr. 594, 208 S. W. 528; Hollis v. State, 69 Tex. Cr. 286, 153 S. W. 853; Alexander v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. 359, 20 S. W. 756; Burke v. State, 5 Tex. App. 74. Vermont. State v. Lapoint, 87 Vt. 115, 88 Atl. 523, 47 L. R. A. (N. S.) 717, Ann. Cas. 1916 C 318. 61 State v. Sorenson, 157 Iowa 534, 138 N. W. 411. 62 Rex v. Davis, Russ. & R. 322; Rex v. Bennett, Russ. & R. 289. In Rex v. Paine, 7 Car. & P. 135, it was held that a shutter box which partly projected from a house, and adjoined the side of a shop window, was not a part of the house, and that a breaking and entering of the same was not burglary. Whether the place of ingress is a part of the house charged to have been broken into is a question of law for the court, and not a question of fact for the jury. Com. v. Bruce, 79 Ky. 560, 3 Ky. L. Rep. 366. 63 State v. Puckett, 95 S. C. 114, 78 S. E. 737, 46 L. R. A. (N. S.) 999. such a case, that the chest or cupboard is fixed in the wall.64 But it has been held to be burglary to break into a showcase or show window built into and forming a part of a house.65 And, as a rule, it is sufficient if there is a breaking into a room from which there is internal communication to the room into which a felonious entry is charged to have been made.66 § 465. Particular acts. It is a sufficient breaking to break or push out the glass in a window or door,67 or to unlatch or unlock or turn the knob of a closed door,68 or window,69 to break open a 641 Hale P. C. 554; State v. Wilson, 1 N. J. L. 439, 1 Am. Dec. 216; Anon., Fost. 108. 65 Lewis v. State, 72 Tex. Cr. 377, 162 S. W. 866. 66 So a charge that the accused broke and entered into a storehouse is sustained by proof of breaking into a cellar under the storehouse, which was used as a storage place for goods and from which there was a communication through a hatchway to the store. Com. v. Bruce, 79 Ky. 560, 3 Ky. L. Rep. 366. 67 Breaking a pane of glass in a window, removing a stick securing the window, and raising it. Burke v. State, 5 Tex. App. 74. In Reg. v. Bird, 9 Car. & P. 44, 38 E. C. L. 38, it was held a sufficient breaking to push in the glass of a window which had been cut, where every part of the glass remained in its place until pushed in. See also Rex v. Robinson, 1 Moody C. C. 327; Rex v. Smith, Russ. & R. 417. 681 Hale P. C. 552. See also the following decisions: Alabama. Norman v. State, 13 Ala. App. 337, 69 So. 362. Georgia. Kent v. State, 84 Ga. 438, 11 S. E. 355, 20 Am. St. Rep. 376. Illinois. Lyons v. People, 68 Ill. 271. Kentucky. Abrams v. Com., 27 Ky. L. Rep. 355, 85 S. W. 173. Missouri. State v. Peebles, 178 Mo. 475, 77 S. W. 518; State v. Woods, 137 Mo. 6, 38 S. W. 722; State v. Hutchinson, 111 Mo. 257, 20 S. W. 34. New York. McCourt v. People, 64 N. Y. 583; Rosenthal v. American Bonding Co. of Baltimore, 143 App. Div. 362, 128 N. Y. Supp. 553; People v. Gartland, 30 App. Div. 534, 52 N. Y. Supp. 352; People v. Bush, 3 Park. Cr. 552. South Dakota. State v. Vierck, 23 S. D. 166, 120 N. W. 1098, 139 Am. St. Rep. 1040. Texas. Rippey v. State, 86 Tex. Cr. 539, 219 S. W. 463; Hollis v. State, 69 Tex. Cr. 286, 153 S. W. 853; Jones v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. 426, 132 S. W. 476. Opening a door which is closed and fastened with a chain hooked over a nail. State v. Hecox, 83 Mo. 531. Removing slats and buttons fastening the door to a chicken house. State v. Helms, 179 Mo. 280, 78 S. W. 592. The forcible removal or displacement of a bar across a door used as a fastening. Ashmon v. State, 9 Ala. App. 29, 63 So. 754. Removing props leaning against a door to hold it shut. State v. Powell, 61 Kan. 81, 58 Pac. 968; Rose v. Com., 19 Ky. L. Rep. 272 40 S. W. 245. 69 Breaking the lock or fastening. Hayes v. Com., 171 Ky. 291, 188 S. W. 415. closed and latched transom,7 70 or to open a closed door,71 or screen door,72 or a closed window,78 though it is not fastened, or to open blinds which are closed, but not fastened,74 or to open a closed transom, trapdoor, or similar contrivance, though it is unlocked and is held in place by its weight only,75 or to remove an iron grating covering an Lifting a window clasp. State v. Moore, alias Hall, 117 Mo. 395, 22 S. W. 1086. Pushing open a hinged window fastened by wedges. Rex v. Hall, Russ. & R. 355. 70 Willoughby v. State, 87 Tex. Cr. 40, 219 S. W. 468. 71 Florida. May v. State, 40 Fla. 426, 24 So. 498. Georgia. Bloodworth v. State, 9 Ga. App. 161, 70 S. E. 892. Iowa. State v. Perry, 165 Iowa 215, 145 N. W. 56; State v. Reid, 20 Iowa 413. Kentucky. Com. v. Mackey, 171 Ky. 473, 188 S. W. 676. New York. People v. Walton, 159 App. Div. 289, 144 N. Y. Supp. 308. North Carolina. State v. Fleming, 107 N. C. 905, 12 S. E. 131. South Dakota. State v. Vierck, 23 S. D. 166, 120 N. W. 1098, 139 Am. St. Rep. 1040. Texas. Barber v. State (Tex. Cr.), 69 S. W. 515; Sparks v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. 86, 29 S. W. 264. Virginia. Finch v. Com., 14 Gratt. 801, 64 Pac. 609; Collins v. Com., 146 Ky. 698, 143 S. W. 35, 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 769; State v. Henderson, 212 Mo. 208, 110 S. W. 1078, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1100, 15 Ann. Cas. 930. 78 Delaware. State V. Manluff, Houst. Cr. Cas. 208. Georgia. Scott v. State, 122 Ga. 138, 50 S. E. 49. Mississippi. Frank v. State, 39 Miss. 705. North Carolina. State v. Boon, 13 Ired. (35 N. C.) 244, 57 Am. Dec. 555. England. Rex v. Hyams, 7 Car. & P. 441; Rex v. Haines, Russ. & R. 451. Where the defendant raised a window in the daytime just enough to prevent the bolt from catching, and raised it the rest of the way and entered at night, it was held to be burglary. People v. Dupree, 98 Mich. 26, 56 N. W. 1046. 74 Scott v. State, 122 Ga. 138, 50 S. E. 49; State v. Fleming, 107 N. C. 905, 12 S. E. 131. 75 Dennis v. People, 27 Mich. 151; Timmons v. State, 34 Ohio St. 426, 32 Am. Rep. 376; Nash v. State, 20 Tex. App. 384, 54 Am. Rep. 529; Rex v. Brown, 2 East P. C. 487, 2 Leach C. C. 1016, note; Rex v. Russell, 1 Moody C. C. 377. Compare Rex v. Lawrence, 4 Car. & P. 231. Pushing open a closed, but unfastened, transom that swings back horizontally on hinges was held to be a “breaking,” within the Ohio statute requiring a "forcible" breaking. Timmons v. State, 34 Ohio St. 426, 32 Am. Rep. 376. 78 entrance into a cellar,76 or a board over an opening in a floor," or to remove a screen or netting from an otherwise open window,' cut a screen door,7 79 or to tear away a curtain over a transom,80 or to push aside a band used in operating machinery to make room for an entry through a hole between the upper and lower floors of a building,81 or to bore a hole through the floor of a granary or corncrib, through which the grain or corn runs into a sack held below,82 or to burn a house in order to enter,83 or to dig a hole under a building, made of logs resting on the ground, and without a floor other than the ground.84 Some courts hold that it is not burglary where entry is made through a partly opened window or door, although the accused is obliged to open it further in order to gain admission.85 But others hold that the raising of a partly opened window,86 or the pushing open of a partly opened door 87 constitutes a sufficient breaking under such circumstances. 76 Com. v. Bruce, 79 Ky. 560, 3 Ky. L. Rep. 366; Rex v. Hall, Russ. & R. 355. A grating covering an area opposite a cellar window. People v. Nolan, 22 Mich. 229. 77 Carter v. State, 68 Ala. 96. Removing a board at the bottom of a corncrib, and thus letting a lot of corn fall out upon the ground. Metz v. State, 46 Neb. 547, 65 N. W. 190. Removing a plank in a partition which was not fastened, but was so loose that it could be pushed back and forth, was held not to be a breaking. Com. v. Trimmer, 1 Mass. 476. 78 State v. Herbert, 63 Kan. 516, 66 Pac. 235; Com. v. Stephenson, 8 Pick. (Mass.) 354. Removing a screen fastened into the window by nails which the accused took out. Sims v. State, 136 Ind. 358, 36 N. E. 278. 79 Hays v. State, 86 Tex. Cr. 469, 217 S. W. 938. 80 Holland v. State, 47 Tex. Cr. 623, 85 S. W. 798. 81 Marshall v. State, 94 Ga. 589, 20 S. E. 432., 82 Walker v. State, 63 Ala. 49, 35 Am. Rep. 1; State v. Crawford, 8 N. D. 539, 80 N. W. 193, 46 L. R. A. 312, 73 Am. St. Rep. 772. 83 White v. State, 49 Ala. 344. 84 Pressley v. State, 111 Ala. 34, 20 S. W. 647; Knotts v. State (Tex. Cr.) 32 S. W. 532. 85 Com. v. Steward, 7 Dane's Abr. 136; Smith v. Com. (Ky.), 128 S. W. 68; Rose v. Com., 19 Ky. L. Rep. 272, 40 S. W. 245; Com. v. Strupney, 105 Mass. 588, 7 Am. Rep. 556; State v. Fleming, 107 N. C. 905, 12 S. E. 131; Rex v. Hyams, 7 Car. & P. 441; Rex v. Smith, 1 Moody C. C. 178. 86 People v. White, 153 Mich. 617, 117 N. W. 161, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1102, 15 Ann. Cas. 927; Claiborne v. State, 113 Tenn. 261, 83 S. W. 352, 68 L. R. A. 859, 106 Am. St. Rep. 833. 87 Goins v. State, 90 Ohio St. 176, 107 N. E. 335, L. R. A. 1915 D 241. Opening a door which is fastened by a hook or strap in such a way as to prevent persons from passing through it, though it is open two or three inches. People v. Toland, 217 N. Y. 187, 111 N. E. 760, rev'g 165 |