Skip to main content

Joy v. State

Citations

  • 460 N.E.2d 551
  • 1984 Ind. App. LEXIS 2389

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 fence surrounding the Leland Lumber Company was a ‘structure’ as contemplated by our burglary statute”
  • holding that “the fence surrounding the Leland Lumber Company was a ‘structure’ as contem‐ plated by our burglary statute”
  • holding that fence surrounding lumber yard was structure under burglary statute as its purpose was protecting property within its confines and it was integral part of closed compound
  • explaining that “the acts of a confederate in the commission of a crime may be imputed to a defendant who did not personally commit each and every element of the offense”
  • where the defendant used wire cutters to cut a fence surrounding a lumber yard
  • where the defendant used wire cutters to cut a fence surrounding a lumber yard

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Ratliff, Neal, Robertson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

94 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

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.