Indiana Supreme Court· 8/20/1970
Word v. State
Citations
- 261 N.E.2d 225
- 254 Ind. 542
- 1970 Ind. LEXIS 579
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- applying the common law \breaking and entering\ element, which connotes a more forceful means of intrusion than Utah's \unlawfully enter\ element, and holding that opening an unlocked door may be sufficient to demonstrate burglary
- applying the common law \breaking and entering\' element, which connotes a more forceful means of intrusion than Viah's \unlawfully enter\ element, and holding that opening an unlocked door may be sufficient to demonstrate burglary
- sufficient evidence to establish a breaking where a screwdriver was used to gain entry to a car leaving pry marks on the door, even though no eyewitness conclusively identified the object, proved the pry marks were made when Word entered, or proved the screwdriver belonged to him
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: DeBruler
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
8 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Estep v. StateIndiana Supreme Court· 1979-09-11· cited 40×
- Smith v. StateIndiana Supreme Court· 1983-10-12· cited 11×
- Christian v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals· 1975-02-20· cited 5×
- K.O. v. StateCourt of Appeals of Utah· 2010-06-17· cited 5×
- Chappell v. StateIndiana Supreme Court· 1972-05-31· cited 3×
- STATE EX REL. KO v. StateCourt of Appeals of Utah· 2010-06-17
- Arturo Martinez, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)Indiana Court of Appeals· 2016-06-24
- McLean v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals· 1973-06-19
Cites
4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
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.