Ark. Code Ann. § 5-39-101 (2026)

Case Notes

Enter and Remain Unlawfully.

Defendant held not to have privilege or license under subdivision (3) (now subdivision (4) of this section), to enter a room since it was closed and marked for employees only. Sims v. State, 272 Ark. 308, 613 S.W.2d 820 (1981).

Where the evidence showed that the defendant attacked the victim and looked for her purse while she was on the porch of her home and escaped by running through the house and a rear window, the state failed to prove the charge of burglary, as the state did not prove an unlawful entry upon the victim's front porch, for subdivision (3) (now subdivision (4) of this section) permits an entry upon premises that are open to the public, and there was no proof that the defendant entered the house for the purpose of committing an offense in the course of his efforts to escape apprehension. Campbell v. State, 289 Ark. 454, 712 S.W.2d 302 (1986).

Defendant's conviction for residential burglary was proper pursuant to subdivision (2)(A) of this section because, although defendant might have been licensed or privileged to enter the victim's trailer, he was certainly not licensed or privileged to remain there after he began stabbing the victim and removing his property. Young v. State, 371 Ark. 393, 266 S.W.3d 744 (2007).

Enter or Remain Unlawfully.

Substantial evidence demonstrated that defendant entered or remained unlawfully on a commercial retailer's property, where there was no evidence that the retailer expressly or impliedly rescinded a notification banning defendant from its property. Brasuell v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 559, 472 S.W.3d 499 (2015).

Defendant entered the victim's home while he was asleep and then pointed the gun at him, telling him to prepare to die; thus, there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that defendant unlawfully entered or remained in the victim's home and defendant's conviction for aggravated residential burglary was affirmed. Although defendant testified that the victim had sent her a text stating that she was always welcome in his home, she did not introduce the text message into evidence, the jury was not required to believe her self-serving testimony, and the jury could have found that defendant no longer had a license or privilege to enter the victim's home on the night of the shooting. Rose v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 563, 472 S.W.3d 167 (2015).

Denying a directed verdict motion on a residential burglary charge was not error as the testimony showed that a neighbor left her door unlocked for her boyfriend or defendant's wife, not for defendant, and thus, the evidence showed that defendant had entered the neighbor's home unlawfully even though he and his wife had keys to the home. Holly v. State, 2017 Ark. 201 (2017).

Evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of residential burglary as defendant entered or remained unlawfully in the house with the purpose to commit a third-degree battery because the defendant's former spouse testified that, before defendant entered the house, she had asked him to leave but that he shoved her out of the way and entered the house uninvited before immediately attacking the battery victim; and she further testified that, during defendant's attack on the battery victim inside the house, she again told defendant to leave but he refused. Williams v. State, 2019 Ark. App. 602, 591 S.W.3d 376 (2019).

Occupiable Structure.

The student union building at a university is an “occupiable structure” under the statutory definition inasmuch as the determinative factor is the nature of the premise — not whether it was occupied at the time of the crime, but rather whether it was occupiable — and a building used for social activities, religious sessions, and classroom meetings is clearly an “occupiable structure.” Barksdale v. State, 262 Ark. 271, 555 S.W.2d 948 (1977).

A building where people assemble for purposes of education is an occupiable structure regardless of whether it was occupied at the time of the crime. Oliver v. State, 14 Ark. App. 240, 687 S.W.2d 850 (1985), rev'd, 286 Ark. 198, 691 S.W.2d 842 (1985).

A supply room, attached to a main warehouse, was an occupiable structure in that it was functionally interconnected with, and immediately contiguous to, the main structure in which the victim carried on its business. Winters v. State, 41 Ark. App. 104, 848 S.W.2d 441 (1993).

Victim’s garage fell within the definition of a “residential occupiable structure,” because it was a building or structure in which the victim lived and was functionally interconnected with and immediately congruous to the main structure in which the victim lived. Horton v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 250 (2014).

Cited: Hill v. State, 261 Ark. 711, 551 S.W.2d 200 (1977); Grays v. State, 264 Ark. 564, 572 S.W.2d 847 (1978); LeFlore v. State, 17 Ark. App. 117, 704 S.W.2d 641 (1986); Stultz v. State, 20 Ark. App. 90, 724 S.W.2d 189 (1987).