## Facts

- George Daniels was indicted in Fulton County for burglary of a Western & Atlantic Railroad Company depot building used to store valuable goods.
- The indictment alleged that Daniels “broke and entered” the depot with intent to steal and, after entering, stole and carried away $2.60 in U.S. postage stamps.
- The depot’s outer door was open, but the State’s evidence showed Daniels forced entry into secured inner rooms or compartments inside the depot where the property was kept.
- Daniels entered a general plea of not guilty and also filed a special plea asserting that, if he committed the offense charged, he had already been convicted in the City Court of Atlanta for “larceny from the house” based on the same transaction.
- The prosecution introduced Daniels’s confessions; in the jury’s presence, the trial judge explained that once the State proved the corpus delicti (that a crime occurred), the jury could consider a confession along with facts consistent with it.
- In its charge, the court also referenced evidence that Daniels had committed and been convicted of another larceny involving the same owner and similar property around the same time, and evidence that he had been selling similar items.
- The jury found Daniels guilty of burglary. The trial court denied his motion for new trial, and Daniels appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether burglary’s “breaking” element is satisfied when the defendant enters a building through an open outer door but then forces entry into inner rooms or compartments within the building.
2. Whether a prior conviction for larceny from the house bars a subsequent prosecution for burglary arising out of the same general occurrence.
3. Whether the trial court’s explanation to the jury about considering confessions after proof of the corpus delicti was error requiring a new trial.
4. Whether the jury charge allowing consideration of other theft-related conduct (and a prior larceny conviction involving similar property) improperly allowed conviction based on other crimes.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the judgment, leaving in place Daniels’s burglary conviction and the denial of his motion for new trial.
- The court held that the “breaking” required for burglary may be shown by the forcible entry into inner rooms or doors within the building, even if the exterior door was open.
- The court rejected Daniels’s former-conviction plea, treating burglary and larceny as distinct offenses so that the larceny conviction did not bar the burglary prosecution.
- The court found no reversible error in the trial court’s statements and instructions regarding the use of Daniels’s confessions after proof that a crime had been committed.
- The court also found no reversible error in the complained-of instruction concerning other, closely related theft conduct and sales of similar property, when considered in context with the full charge and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Legal Principles

- A “breaking” for burglary can occur by forcing an inner door, partition, or secured room inside a building, even when the main outer door is open, if the entry is made with the intent to steal.
- A prior conviction bars a later prosecution only when the offenses are the same in law and in fact; burglary (breaking and entering with intent) and larceny (taking and carrying away) are not the same offense.
- A confession does not stand alone to establish guilt; the State must first show the corpus delicti, after which the jury may consider the confession together with corroborating circumstances and decide what weight to give it.
- Evidence of other theft-related conduct involving the same owner and similar property, occurring around the same time, may be referenced in the charge as part of the surrounding circumstances bearing on guilt, so long as the jury remains the judge of the facts and guilt must still be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
- A special plea in bar based on former conviction may require resolution of factual questions by the factfinder; where the plea does not establish a legal bar on its face, it will not defeat the prosecution.

## Conclusion

Daniels’s burglary conviction was affirmed because the State could satisfy the “breaking” element by showing he forced entry into secured inner rooms within an otherwise open depot, and because neither his earlier larceny-from-the-house conviction nor the challenged instructions on confessions and related theft evidence required a new trial.


Daniels v. State, 78 Ga. 98 (1886)