What Are The Common Defenses Used In Burglary Cases?

In burglary cases, the accused may raise various legal defenses to dispute the charges. Burglary involves unlawfully entering a building or structure with the intent to commit a crime, usually theft. To successfully defend against a burglary charge, the defendant typically aims to challenge elements like unlawful entry, intent, or lack of evidence. Understanding these common defenses is crucial for both defendants and those prosecuting burglary cases.

Common Defenses in Burglary Cases:

Lack of Intent: One of the most common defenses in burglary cases is the argument that the defendant lacked the intent to commit a crime. If the prosecution cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to steal or commit another crime when they entered the building or structure, the burglary charge may be reduced or dismissed.

Consent: The defendant may argue that they had permission to enter the building or structure. If the entry was authorized by the property owner or someone with legal authority, the act would not qualify as burglary. However, the defense of consent does not apply if the defendant exceeded the scope of permission granted.

Alibi: An alibi defense asserts that the defendant was not at the scene of the alleged burglary at the time the crime occurred. If the defendant can provide credible evidence (witnesses, security footage, etc.) that they were elsewhere, this can be a strong defense to counter the burglary charges.

Mistake of Fact: This defense involves the argument that the defendant did not know they were unlawfully entering the property. For example, if the defendant mistakenly entered the wrong house or building, believing it was their own or a friend’s property, this could negate the element of unlawful entry required for burglary.

Duress: If the defendant was coerced or threatened with immediate harm (such as physical violence) by another person, and this threat led them to commit the burglary, they may raise a duress defense. The defendant must show that they had no reasonable choice but to commit the crime due to the threat of harm.

Self-Defense or Defense of Others: In rare cases, the defendant may argue that they entered the property to protect themselves or others. For example, if they were trying to escape an attacker or prevent a crime, the defendant may argue that their actions were justified under the principles of self-defense or defense of others.

No Unlawful Entry: In some burglary cases, the defendant may argue that they did not unlawfully enter the property. For example, they may argue that the entry was through an open door, window, or another accessible route, and therefore, they did not commit the act of breaking and entering required for burglary.

Insufficient Evidence: A defendant may challenge the evidence presented by the prosecution. If the prosecution cannot prove key elements such as unlawful entry, the defendant’s intent to commit a crime, or the identity of the alleged perpetrator, the case may be dismissed or the defendant acquitted.

Legal Actions and Protections:

Consulting a Defense Attorney: A defendant facing burglary charges should consult a criminal defense attorney to explore potential defenses. Experienced attorneys can assess the case and determine the most appropriate defense strategy based on the facts and evidence.

Negotiating a Plea: In some cases, the defense may involve negotiating a plea agreement, where the defendant agrees to plead guilty to a lesser charge in exchange for reduced penalties.

Example:

If a defendant is accused of burglarizing a store but claims they were given permission by the owner to enter and take some items, they could argue the defense of consent. However, if the defendant took more than what was authorized, or if the owner revoked consent while the defendant was still inside, the defense would likely fail, and the case could proceed under burglary charges.