(a) A person is guilty of burglary in the second degree when such person enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling, while a person other than a participant in the crime is actually present in such dwelling, with intent to commit a crime therein.
(b) Burglary in the second degree is a class C felony.
(1969, P.A. 828, S. 104; P.A. 01-83, S. 2; Jan. Sp. Sess. P.A. 08-1, S. 3.)
History: P.A. 01-83 amended Subsec. (a) to make a technical change for purposes of gender neutrality, designate existing provisions re entering or remaining unlawfully in a dwelling at night with intent to commit a crime therein as Subdiv. (1) and add Subdiv. (2) re entering or remaining unlawfully in a dwelling, while a person other than a participant in the crime is actually present in such dwelling, with intent to commit a crime therein; Jan. Sp. Sess. P.A. 08-1 amended Subsec. (a) to delete former Subdiv. (1) re entering or remaining unlawfully in a dwelling at night with intent to commit a crime therein, which conduct was reclassified as burglary in the first degree under Sec. 53a-101 by same act, and make a conforming change, effective March 1, 2008.
Cited. 161 C. 283; 169 C. 263; Id., 556; 175 C. 315; 184 C. 258. Instruction characterizing burglary as a crime against the person likely to involve danger to life was not in error. 188 C. 542. Cited. Id., 715; 190 C. 496; 195 C. 611; 197 C. 574; 198 C. 671; 204 C. 1; 205 C. 456; 215 C. 257; 216 C. 273; 220 C. 417; 229 C. 285; 232 C. 455; 242 C. 523; Id., 689.
Cited. 5 CA 113; 6 CA 24; 9 CA 133; Id., 349; Id., 656; 11 CA 575; 13 CA 413; 14 CA 526; 15 CA 34; 16 CA 333; 19 CA 396; 20 CA 369; Id., 586; 23 CA 201; 29 CA 801; judgment reversed, see 229 C. 285; 31 CA 94; Id., 370; 34 CA 599; 35 CA 714; 38 CA 20; Id., 231; Id., 531; 40 CA 553; 41 CA 169; Id., 255. The crime proscribed by section is complete once there has been an unlawful entering or remaining in a dwelling, at night, with intent to commit a crime in that dwelling. 76 CA 779.
Subsec. (a):
Cited. 181 C. 172; 182 C. 207; 189 C. 631; 190 C. 440; 199 C. 88; 200 C. 523; 202 C. 676; 204 C. 377; 214 C. 493; 216 C. 699; 220 C. 400; 223 C. 635; 241 C. 784.
Cited. 1 CA 260; 6 CA 697; 14 CA 710; 21 CA 260; 23 CA 564; judgment reversed in part, see 220 C. 400; 24 CA 502; 30 CA 606; 35 CA 262; 36 CA 774; 38 CA 643; 42 CA 78. Defendant's right to fair trial and unanimous verdict not violated when court made it clear that the jury had to find each element of crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt and there was ample evidence to support conviction under both alternate theories of liability. 59 CA 305. Jury could have found defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of remaining unlawfully in victim's bedroom because whatever possible license defendant thought he had to enter bedroom, that license was withdrawn when he refused to identify himself, charged at victim, lay on top of her and attempted to kiss and touch her all over her body. 93 CA 205.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
147
cases (
8 in the last 5 years), 1975–2025 · leading case:
State v. Coleman, 700 A.2d 14 (Conn. 1997).
State v. Coleman, 700 A.2d 14 (Conn. 1997).
· cites it 21× “Following a court trial, the defendant, Charles Coleman, was convicted of four counts of sexual assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-70 (a) (l), 1 burglary in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-101 (a) (2), 2 burglary in the…”
State v. Ramirez, 894 A.2d 1032 (Conn. App. Ct. 2006).
· cites it 12× “The defendant, Armando Ramirez, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-134 and burglary in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-102. 1 On appeal, the…”
State v. Russell, 922 A.2d 191 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007).
· cites it 7× “The defendant, Leslie Russell, appeals from the judgments of conviction, following a jury trial, of two counts of stalking in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-181e (a), 1 two counts of criminal violation of a protective order in violation of General…”
State v. Packard, 439 A.2d 983 (Conn. 1981).
· cites it 8× “Packard, was found guilty of the crimes of burglary in the second degree and of sexual assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-102 [1] and 53a-70, [2] respectively.”
State v. Williams, 534 A.2d 230 (Conn. 1987).
· cites it 7× “Williams, guilty on both counts of a substitute information charging him with burglary in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-102 2 and interfering with an officer by resisting arrest in violation of General Statutes § 53a-167a.”
State v. Calabrese, 975 A.2d 126 (Conn. App. Ct. 2009).
· cites it 12× “to 2005) § 53a-102 (a)(1) [2] and interfering with an officer in violation of General Statutes § 53a-167a(a).”
State v. McElveen, 802 A.2d 74 (Conn. 2002).
· cites it 4× “Thereafter, the defendant was charged with robbeiy in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-134 5 6and burglary in the second *203 degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-102.”
State v. Oquendo, 613 A.2d 1300 (Conn. 1992).
· cites it 4× “After a trial to a jury, the defendant, Ferdinand Oquendo, was convicted of the crimes of felony murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54c, robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-134 (a) (4), burglary in the second degree in violation of…”
State v. Morocho, 888 A.2d 164 (Conn. App. Ct. 2006).
· cites it 8× “Morocho, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of attempt to commit sexual assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-49 (a) (2) and 53a-70 (a) (1), and burglary in the second *207 degree in violation of General Statutes §…”
State v. Chicano, 584 A.2d 425 (Conn. 1990).
· cites it 4× “of General Statutes § bSa-SAc, 1 three counts of the crime of mur *701 der in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a (a), 2 one count of the crime of capital felony in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54b (8), 3 one count of the crime of injury to a child in violation of…”
State v. Mollo, 776 A.2d 1176 (Conn. App. Ct. 2001).
· cites it 5× “As a result of a plea bargain, the defendant, on August 31,1990, entered pleas of guilty to burglary in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-102 and disorderly conduct in violation of General Statutes § 53a-182.”
State v. Sinclair, 500 A.2d 539 (Conn. 1985).
· cites it 4× “After a trial to a jury, the defendant, John Sinclair, was convicted of burglary in the second degree, in violation of General Statutes § 53a-102, 2 and was sentenced to imprisonment for eight years.”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-102(a) — 4 cases
State v. Calabrese, 975 A.2d 126 (Conn. App. Ct. 2009).
“to 2005) § 53a-102 (a)(1) [2] and interfering with an officer in violation of General Statutes § 53a-167a(a).”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-102(a)(1) — 1 case
State v. Calabrese, 975 A.2d 126 (Conn. App. Ct. 2009).
“to 2005) § 53a-102 (a)(1) [2] and interfering with an officer in violation of General Statutes § 53a-167a(a).”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-102(a)(2) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.