Utah Court of Appeals

What constitutes a dwelling under Utah's burglary statute? State v. McNearney Explained

2011 UT App 4
No. 20090463-CA
January 6, 2011
Reversed

Summary

McNearney was convicted of second-degree felony burglary of a dwelling after breaking into a newly constructed but never-occupied house. The trial court denied his motion for directed verdict arguing the house was not a dwelling under Utah law. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a structure must actually be used for overnight lodging to qualify as a dwelling.

Analysis

Background and Facts

In State v. McNearney, the defendant was convicted of second-degree felony burglary of a dwelling after breaking into a newly constructed house. The house had been completed for approximately eight months, was fully functional with appliances, and had been on the market for four months. However, it had never been occupied by anyone. The homeowner had built it next to his residence with the intent to sell.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether the never-occupied house met Utah Code section 76-6-201(2)’s definition of a dwelling: “a building which is usually occupied by a person lodging in the building at night, whether or not a person is actually present.” This classification determines whether burglary is a second-degree felony (dwelling) or third-degree felony (building).

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals disagreed with the trial court’s interpretation of State v. Cox, which had addressed sporadically occupied structures. The court emphasized that Cox focused on “the purpose for which the structure is used” and whether “the structure is one in which people typically stay overnight.” The analysis requires examining the actual use of the particular structure, not merely its structural capacity or intended purpose. Since McNearney’s target had never been occupied, it could not be “usually occupied by a person lodging therein at night” as required by statute.

Practice Implications

This decision provides important guidance for defending burglary charges involving unoccupied structures. Practitioners should focus on the use history of the burglarized building rather than its design or intended purpose. The court explicitly left unresolved situations involving previously occupied but currently vacant dwellings, suggesting this remains an area for potential challenge. Defense counsel should file motions for directed verdict when the evidence establishes that a structure has never been used for overnight lodging.

Original Opinion

Link to Original Case

Case Details

Case Name

State v. McNearney

Citation

2011 UT App 4

Court

Utah Court of Appeals

Case Number

No. 20090463-CA

Date Decided

January 6, 2011

Outcome

Reversed

Holding

A never-occupied house does not meet the statutory definition of a dwelling under Utah Code section 76-6-201(2) because it has never been ‘usually occupied by a person lodging in the building at night.’

Standard of Review

Correctness for questions of statutory interpretation

Practice Tip

When challenging dwelling classifications in burglary cases, focus on the actual use history of the structure rather than its intended purpose or structural capacity for habitation.

Need Appellate Counsel?

Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Related Court Opinions

    • Utah Court of Appeals

    State v. Maese

    April 29, 2010

    The invited error doctrine precludes appellate review when a defendant affirmatively represents readiness to proceed despite pending motions and actively approves jury instructions without objection.
    • Appellate Procedure
    • |
    • Jury Instructions
    • |
    • Preservation of Error
    Read More
    • Utah Court of Appeals

    Spafford v. Granite Credit Union

    November 25, 2011

    Trial court properly granted summary judgment where plaintiffs failed to timely disclose expert witness testimony necessary to establish breach of duty and causation in premises liability case involving curb design.
    • Evidence and Admissibility
    • |
    • Preservation of Error
    • |
    • Summary Judgment
    • |
    • Tort Law and Negligence
    Read More
About these Decision Summaries

Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.