Eve Carpenter Minnefornia's Burglary

Eve Carpenter would not be charged of burglary under the Minnefornia law because the element of breaking was not fulfilled. There are also issues in the element of felony theft.
In Minnefornia statute 342.5(a) burglary must include breaking and entering. It is not breaking unless one is tearing away or removing any part of a house or the locks, latches, or other fastenings intended to secure it. Felony theft 34.2(g) only occurs if there was intent to permanently deprive the owner of that property.
The first element in Minnefornia’s burglary statute looks at breaking and entering. The element of breaking is not satisfied because in no moment did Ms. Carpenter tear away or remove any part of the house to get inside. Layla Hauser let Ms. Carpenter as she was working a temporary job in her home. Later when she went into the study the door was partially open so Carpenter did not break into the study either. When it comes to entering this part of the element is fulfilled because she did in …show more content…
The initial matter of intent is met because as Ms. Carpenter sat in the hallway and pondered her problem with her student loans she took into account Mrs. Hauser’s book and art collection. Furthermore when she is cornered by Mrs. Hauser she admits that she thought the painting was ensured further proof that she had thought her plan through. All of this points to the conclusion that she had intent throughout the entire act. She thought about taking something before entering the study and then while in the study she thought about stealing the painting that she assumed was insured. However the element of Felony theft requires an intent to permanently deprive the owner of their property. According to Ms. Carpenter’s statement she intended to send an anonymous tip to the authorities as to the location of the painting’s buyer. This shows that she did not intend to permanently deprive Mrs. Hauser of her