## Facts

- Before 5:00 a.m. on January 31, 1986, a resident of a sorority house in West Lafayette saw an intruder on the second floor and alerted others, who called police.
- Police searched the house and found Kevin D. Creasy in the basement.
- Creasy had entered through an unlocked back door into a storeroom and then passed through an interior door leading into the house.
- When found, Creasy had a knife and apron strings in his pockets; the strings had been cut from an apron in the storeroom near the entry.
- Creasy was holding a resident’s gray T-shirt taken from a laundry room near the point of entry.
- Creasy was charged with burglary as a Class B felony, requiring proof of breaking and entering with intent to commit theft.
- A jury convicted Creasy, and the trial court sentenced him to fourteen years’ imprisonment.

## Issues

1. Whether sufficient evidence supported the burglary conviction as to (a) “breaking” and (b) intent to commit theft.
2. Whether the trial court relied on improper aggravating circumstances, making the fourteen-year sentence manifestly unreasonable.

## Decision

- The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence.
- The evidence permitted a reasonable inference of “breaking” because the jury could find Creasy opened a closed interior door to enter the house proper.
- The evidence permitted a reasonable inference of intent to commit theft based on the pre-dawn entry and Creasy’s possession of property taken from the premises.
- The sentence was within statutory limits and was not manifestly unreasonable; the trial court could consider Creasy’s criminal history and pending charges as aggravators.

## Legal Principles

- For burglary, “breaking” is satisfied by minimal movement of a structural barrier, including opening an unlocked door or pushing open a door that is closed or slightly ajar.
- Intent to commit theft may be proven by circumstantial evidence and inferred from the time, manner, and surrounding circumstances of the entry, including possession of property taken from inside.
- The value of property taken (and the taker’s purpose for taking it) is not determinative of whether entry was accompanied by felonious intent for burglary purposes.
- On sufficiency review, an appellate court does not reweigh evidence or judge credibility; it affirms if substantial probative evidence supports each element beyond a reasonable doubt.
- A sentence within the statutory range is revised only if manifestly unreasonable in light of the offense and the offender’s character; prior criminal conduct and pending charges may be considered as aggravating circumstances.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Creasy’s burglary conviction because opening a closed interior door could constitute a breaking and the surrounding circumstances—including a pre-dawn intrusion and possession of items taken from the house—supported an inference of intent to commit theft; it also upheld the fourteen-year sentence as not manifestly unreasonable.


Creasy v. State, 518 N.E.2d 785 (Ind. 1988)