In State v. Veith, the WA Court of Appeals held that Washington’s second-degree burglary statute does not require a “nexus” between the unlawful entry and the crime the defendant intends to commit in the building. Here, the defendant committed second degree burglary by (1) unlawfully entering a grocery store in violation of a trespass order, and (2) with the intent to commit the crime of violating a Domestic Violence No Contact Order, the defendant entered the store together with a protected person.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On August 17, 2023, a grocery store trespassed Mr. Veith from its premises. Ten days later, on August 27, Veith went to the store and bought groceries with his ex-spouse. The store’s loss prevention officer observed Veith grocery shopping on surveillance video and called the police. Later, police contacted Mr. Veith and his ex-spouse inside a van in the store parking lot. It was determined there was a no-contact order (NCO) prohibiting Veith from being in the presence of his ex-spouse. The State charged Veith with felony violation of a protection order—domestic violence and second degree burglary. At trial, the jury found Veith guilty as charged.
On appeal, Veith argued that the second degree burglary statute should be read as requiring a “nexus” between the unlawful entry into a building and the intent to commit a crime therein. However, the Court of Appeals (COA) disagreed.
COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS
First the COA explained that the second degree burglary statute sets forth the elements of second degree burglary: (1) entering or remaining unlawfully in a building other than a vehicle or dwelling, and (2) with the intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein. Next, the COA raised and dismissed Veith’s arguments that a “nexus” must exist:
“Nothing in the plain language of the second degree burglary statute requires a nexus between the unlawful entry and the crime being committed within the building and we cannot add words to the otherwise unambiguous plain language of the burglary statute.” ~WA Court of Appeals.
With that, the COA affirmed Mr. Veith’s conviction.
My opinion? This case reveals how seriously our courts consider cases involving DV and No-Contact Orders. It’s generally known that violating a no-contact or restraining order would result in a burglary charge if you unlawfully enter a protected person’s home or premises with the intent to commit a crime, such as assault or harassment. Nowadays, simply being in a public place with a protected party who mutually consents to violating the NCO right along with you can result in burglary charges.
Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with Burglary, Domestic Violence or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.
