¶1I respectfully dissent. In my opinion, the Court of Appeals properly focused on the evidence of respondent’s intent at the time he entered the home, as that is what the burglary statute requires. There is simply no evidence in this record that respondent harbored any criminal intent at this critical juncture. I would affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.
339 S.C. 346
529 S.E.2d 526
State v. Pinckney
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Decided March 13, 2000
Supreme Court of South Carolina · decided 2000-03-13
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently April 2016 · most notably State v. McHoney (2001), State v. McKnight (2003)
49 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 2000-03-13
View the full empirical analysis of this case →