Skip to main content

Day v. State

Citations

  • 534 S.W.2d 681
  • 1976 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 900

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that “the structure itself must be of an enclosed character. A structure that is merely enclosed by something else would not for that reason alone be an enclosed structure [i.e., a building] under the statute.”
  • “enclosed structure” under Texas Penal Code Section 30.01(2) does not “include…open carports with walls on both sides but none on the ends”
  • \This Court must do its duty to insure that changes in the law effected by enactment of the new [Texas Penal] Code are not rendered meaningless by judicial construction that merely reinstates the old Code.\
  • structure with no doors or locks not a \building\ for burglary statute
  • structure with no doors or locks not a `building' for burglary statute

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Odom, Morrison

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

31 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

1 case in this archive is cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.