Neville Wang

Qi Wang Phone:- Email- Writing Sample: Legal Memorandum I developed this writing sample as part of the American Legal Writing, Analysis, and Research class where I learned to conduct legal research and write a case memo. This memo presents facts in a burglary case, legal research results, and my analysis and recommendation to the defendant. This memo demonstrates that I am able to analyze cases to develop and present effective legal analyses. MEMORANDUM TO: Prof. Nancy Daspit FROM: Neville Wang — ALWAR DATE: April 13, 2020 RE: Client File 20-122 / Harry Windsor / Georgia / Burglary QUESTION PRESENTED Under Georgia law, is Harry Windsor guilty of burglary in the second degree when Maria Cochrun found him standing outside her barn holding a sack of tools and he fled when she discovered him? FACTS Our client is Harry Windsor, a twenty-year-old man, who works at Maria Cochran’s farm on weekends. On December 14, 2019, Windsor knocked Cochran down and fled the scene when Cochran spotted him bagging her tools from her barn. The firm has been asked to analyze whether Windsor is likely guilty of burglary in the second degree. Windsor has been working for Cochran since he was in high school. He continues to work for Cochran on weekends after graduating from high school in 2018. At Cochran’s farm, Windsor’s work includes driving the tractor, cutting grass in the fields, planting crops, weeding between the rows in the fields, and repairing the tractor and other machinery with Cochran’s tools. Windsor is now 1 working as a mechanic at a car repair shop, where he becomes acquainted with Fred Iffland, a co-worker at the repair shop. The Cochran farm and house are located in a rural area where family farms are far apart. The property covers over ten acres of land. A fence encloses the house and barn with a gate that locks. The distance between the barn and the house is about fifteen meters. The barn is made of metal and also has a door with a lock. The barn stores a tractor, tools, hay, and other farm-related items. On Friday, December 13, 2019, Cochran gave the keys for the barn to Windsor, since Cochran planned to spend the weekend elsewhere. Windsor worked on the farm on the next day, December 14, 2019. After finishing his work, Windsor returned the tractor and tools into the barn, and then left the keys in the barn. On 6:00 p.m., Saturday, December 14, 2019, Cochran returned home one day earlier than she planned. Around 10:00 p.m. that evening, Cochran heard a noise from somewhere near the barn and walked to check the barn. Cochran spotted Windsor’s truck outside the barn and called out Windsor inquiring what he was doing. Windsor answered that he was just returning some tools he had took away earlier that day. However, Cochran did not believe him because she saw Windsor holding a burlap sack and putting the tools into the sack instead of taking out to return them. Cochran also saw bolt cutters on the ground. 2 As Cochran approached him, Windsor ran toward her and knocked her down with a flashlight at his hand. Windsor then ran to the truck and drove away. As a result, Cochran fell down and injured her hip. Cochran called the police with her cell phone after the incident. Cochran estimated that the police arrived about five to ten minutes after her call. Cochran told the police what happened and that Windsor left the tools, the burlap sack, and the bolt cutters at the scene. She said that she did not own the bolt cutters and the lock on the barn door was cut, probably with those bolt cutters. Cochran further provided the police with vehicle information of the truck and Windsor’s address. Around two hours afterwards, the police located Windsor’s truck parked at Iffland’s home and arrested both Windsor and Iffland while they were smoking marijuana together. Windsor was charged with burglary in the second degree, criminal trespass, and battery. During the client interview, Windsor acknowledged that he had an addiction to drugs and was short of money for more marijuana. Windsor further admitted that he intended to pawn Cochran’s tools for money. However, he was going to return the tools before Cochran noticed that they were missing. Windsor was to buy the tools back upon receiving wages from the repair shop. Windsor has asked whether he will be convicted of burglary in the second degree. 3 DISCUSSION I. Harry Windsor probably is guilty of burglary in the second degree. A defendant is guilty of burglary in the second degree when he enters or remains in a structure without authority, he has the intent to commit a felony or a theft, and the structure at issue satisfies the definition of a “building” under the statue. O.C.G.A. § 16-7-1 (c) (2020). This memo will now discuss whether Windsor entered the barn without authority, whether he had the intent to commit a theft, and whether the barn is a building under the statute. A. Harry Windsor entered the barn without authority. A defendant is guilty of burglary in the second degree when he enters or remains in a structure without authority. Id. “Without authority” means “without legal right or privilege or without permission of a person legally entitled to withhold the right.” Hambrick v. State, 330 S.E.2d 383, 386 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985). Any authority a defendant might have to enter ceases when he acts aggressively against a victim. Id. In Hambrick, when the defendant visited the victim under a fake identity, the victim recognized the defendant’s true identity, but still welcomed him to home for a friendly visit. Id. The defendant knew that the victim kept his money in snuff cans tied around his neck with stockings. Id. After entering the home, the defendant tried to pull the snuff cans off from the victim’s 4 neck first by hand and then with a pocketknife. Id. In response, the victim put his hands up to his neck to prevent the defendant from getting the cans, but failed. Id. The defendant cut the victim’s finger during the struggle and took the money before leaving the victim’s home. Id. Accordingly, the court held that the defendant lost his authority to stay in the victim’s home due to his aggressive actions. Id. In Windsor’s case, Windsor acted aggressively when knocking Cochran down with a flashlight. Windsor finished work from Cochran’s farm, returned the tractor and tools into the barn, and left the keys in the barn before 6:00 p.m. December 14, 2019. At 10:00 p.m. that night, Cochran saw Windsor’s truck outside her barn and Windsor holding a burlap sack while putting her tools into the sack. As Cochran confronted him, Windsor ran toward her and knocked her down with a flashlight, injuring her hip from the fall. Windsor knocking down Cochran and injuring her hip is similar to the defendant in Hambrick taking away the cans by force and cutting the victim’s finger with a knife. Accordingly, Windsor remained in the barn likely without authority. B. Harry Windsor probably had the intent to commit a theft. A defendant is guilty of burglary in the second degree when he has the intent to commit a felony or a theft inside the structure. O.C.G.A. § 16-7-1 (c). A jury may infer intent to commit a theft based on what happened to the victim’s house 5 and assets. Wilson v. State, 583 S.E.2d 243, 245 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003). A completed theft is not required. Westmoreland v. State, 636 S.E.2d 692, 694 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006). The presence of valuables in the structure, the defendant holding these valuables, and the defendant escaping when discovered demonstrate intent. Wilson, 583 S.E.2d at 245. In Wilson, a loud cracking noise in the victim’s bedroom drew him to the room. Id. The victim saw the defendant entering through his bedroom window. Id. The defendant approached the victim’s bed while holding the victim's computer game system. Id. After being identified by the victim, the defendant dropped the game system and fled the scene with the co-defendant. Id. Accordingly, the court held that the defendant had the intent to commit a theft. Id. In Windsor’s case, Windsor held the tools near the barn and escaped when discovered by Cochran. The barn stored a tractor and tools, which were of value. Windsor was putting the tools into a sack when discovered by Cochran. Windsor fled the scene after knocking her down and left the tools, the burlap sack, and the bolt cutters at the scene. Windsor holding the tools and escaping is similar to the defendant in Wilson holding the game system and fleeing when discovered. Therefore, Windsor probably had the intent to commit a theft. Planning ahead and bringing tools to gain entry can establish intent to commit a theft. Westmoreland, 636 S.E.2d at 694. In Westmoreland, to prepare for 6 breaking into the apartment, the defendant brought a screwdriver with him. Id. Before entering the apartment, the defendant pried off the window screen. Id. The defendant then cracked and removed a window pane from the apartment to gain entry. Id. Inside the apartment, the defendant disconnected a DVD player and put it on a chair. Id. The defendant also took some DVDs out of a cabinet and put them into a plastic grocery bag on a chair in the victim’s living room. Id. The defendant fled the scene after knowing that neighbors had called the police. Id. Accordingly, the court held that the defendant had the intent to commit a theft. Id. In Windsor’s case, he brought bolt cutters and used them to cut the lock on Cochran’s barn. Windsor returned to the barn in his truck with bolt cutters at the night of December 14, 2019. When confronted by Cochran, Windsor was putting the tools from the barn into the burlap sack. Windsor fled the scene after knocking Cochran down and left the tools, the burlap sack, and the bolt cutters at the scene. Windsor planning ahead and bringing bolt cutters is similar to the defendant planning ahead and taking a screwdriver in his pocket in Westmoreland. Accordingly, Windsor probably had the intent to commit a theft. C. Maria Cochran’s barn probably was a building under the statute. A defendant is guilty of burglary in the second degree when the structure at issue is a “building” under the burglary statute. O.C.G.A. § 16-7-1 (c). A structure 7 used to provide “shelter of animals or storage of goods” is considered a building. Mezick v. State, 661 S.E.2d 635, 638 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008). A structure that stores goods is a “building” under Georgia’s burglary statue. Id. In Mezick, the structure was a “giant wooden shed” storing the air compressors on top of steel racks inside the shed. Id. The shed had a wooden roof and steel rack enclosure on three sides with an open front. Id. The entire compound consisted of a main business building, a courtyard and the storage shed. Id. The entire compound was locked and the rear of the compound was fenced and locked. Id. Accordingly, the court held that the shed was a “building” under the burglary statute. Id. In Windsor’s case, Cochran’s barn stored a tractor and tools. The barn normally stores a tractor, the tools, hay, and other farm-related items. In addition, the barn was made of metal and also had a door with a lock. A fence enclosed the Cochran house and the barn with a gate that locks. Cochran’s barn is similar to the shed in Mezick. Therefore, the barn is probably a “building” under Georgia’s burglary statue. An enclosed structure with limited access is likely a “building” under Georgia’s burglary statue. Floyd v. State, 427 S.E.2d 605, 606 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993). In Floyd, the structure was an enclosed garden center sitting next to the main building of the Wal-Mart store. Id. The garden center had a roof and was enclosed by a twelve-foot-high chain-link fence that did not reach the roof. Id. The garden 8 center was locked during the store’s off-hours and accessible only to the store’s authorized persons. Id. During the store’s open hours, the garden center was open and served the store’s retail operations. Id. The garden center was connected to the adjacent main building through a door that opened into the center. Id. For extra security, the store erected unmortared walls along the inside of the fence. Id. Accordingly, the court held that the structure was a “building” within the meaning of the burglary statute. Id. In Windsor’s case, the barn was enclosed and with limited access. The barn was fully enclosed by metal walls and it had a roof closely connected with the bulk of the structure. The barn also had a locked door. A fence enclosed the Cochran house and the barn with a locked gate. Cochran’s barn is similar to the garden center in Floyd. Thus, the barn is probably a “building” under Georgia’s burglary statue. A structure that does not store goods is not a building. Redfern v. State, 540 S.E.2d 701, 703. In Redfern, the 2,000-foot-high tower was made of steel beams and held upright by guy wires. Id. at 704. The tower was open to all directions from top to bottom. Id. The function of the tower was to emit television broadcast signal rather than to store goods. Id. Accordingly, the court held that the tower was not a “building” within the meaning of the burglary statute. Id. 9 In Windsor’s case, the barn stores tools. The barn was fully enclosed by metal and had a roof directly on top of the bulk. Windsor customarily locks the barn to store the tractor and tools after he finishes work. Cochran’s barn is different from the tower in Redfern. Therefore, the barn is likely a “building” under Georgia’s burglary statue. CONCLUSION Harry Windsor is likely guilty of burglary in the second degree under Georgia law. Harry Windsor probably entered the barn without authority because Cochran did not authorize Windsor to enter or remain in her barn after he got off work and late in the night. Windor probably has the intent to commit a theft given the presence of valuable tools in the barn, him holding the tools, and fleeing from the scene. The barn is probably a “building” under Georgia’s burglary statue because it stores goods and is an enclosure with limited access. Considering that the jury is likely to find Windsor guilty of burglary in the second degree, the firm should negotiate a plea deal for a lesser charge with a recommendation for drug rehabilitation to avoid imprisonment, if possible. 10