Mr. Zaun and his "crew" went on a burglary spree. He would walk up to the front door of a home and knock. If no one answered, he would jimmy open the door, go inside, and loot the place. If someone answered, Zaun would feign ignorance and ask if "Tyler" was home, and then leave after being told he had the wrong address.
Zaun was convicted for residential burglaries for the empty homes he plundered and was convicted for attempted burglaries for those occupied homes from which he departed upon discovering someone was home. Zaun appealed his attempted burglary convictions.
The Third District affirms.
Zaun argues that there was insufficient evidence that he had the specific intent to burgle the homes when he knocked on their front doors. Rather, his intent was in limbo until determining whether anyone was home. Only after his knocks went unanswered did Zaun form the specific intent to burgle the homes.
It's a good try. But the panel points out that while Zaun's version is certainly reasonable given the evidence at trial, so is the jury's version that Zaun had the specific intent to burgle the homes when he approached their front doors, and just aborted that intent if someone answered. Because there is substantial evidence to support a not guilty verdict does not mean there isn't substantial evidence to support a guilty verdict.
No comments:
Post a Comment