## Facts

- Harry Stewart was charged with **second-degree burglary** after items were stolen from the home of **Claude Hicks**.
- Stewart’s **ex-girlfriend** reported to police that Stewart **confessed** to her that he stole tools and other items from Hicks’s home.
- The stolen items were taken from **Hicks’s basement**, which was part of the residential structure.
- The basement had **no interior entrance** from the home’s living area.
- Entry to the basement was possible only through a **separate, exterior door** that was **locked**.
- The Commonwealth presented evidence that the basement was used in connection with ordinary home life, including that it contained **Hicks’s laundry room**, a **refrigerator**, and a **workshop**.
- At trial, Stewart moved for a **directed verdict**, arguing that the proof showed, at most, **third-degree burglary** (unlawful entry into a “building”) because the basement was not a “dwelling.”
- The trial court **denied** the motion, the jury found Stewart **guilty of second-degree burglary**, and the court sentenced him to **five years’ imprisonment**.
- Stewart appealed, renewing his claim that the basement’s separate exterior access and lock meant it was not part of a “dwelling” for second-degree burglary.

## Issues

1. Whether a basement located beneath a residence, used for household functions but accessible only through a separately locked exterior door and not from the interior living area, constitutes part of a “dwelling” for Kentucky second-degree burglary rather than a separate “building” for third-degree burglary.
2. Whether the trial court erred in denying Stewart’s directed-verdict motion based on the claim that the Commonwealth’s evidence was insufficient to prove entry into a “dwelling.”

## Decision

- The Kentucky Court of Appeals **affirmed** Stewart’s conviction and five-year sentence.
- The court held that the basement could be treated as part of the **dwelling**, even though it lacked interior access and was secured by a separate exterior lock.
- Because the evidence permitted a finding that Stewart unlawfully entered a **dwelling** with intent to commit a crime, the trial court properly **denied** the directed-verdict motion.

## Legal Principles

- For Kentucky burglary grading, a space that is part of the residential structure and used in connection with home life may qualify as part of a **“dwelling,”** even if it is entered only through an exterior door and separately locked.
- In deciding whether an area is part of a dwelling or only a non-dwelling building, a court may consider the area’s **relationship to the residence** and its **household use** (such as laundry, food storage, and home work areas), not only the presence or absence of an interior doorway.
- A directed verdict is not required if, viewing the evidence favorably to the Commonwealth, a reasonable juror could find the elements of the charged offense, including that the place entered was a **dwelling** for purposes of second-degree burglary.

## Conclusion

Because Hicks’s basement was physically part of the house and used for ordinary household purposes (including laundry, a refrigerator, and a workshop), the Court of Appeals treated it as part of the dwelling despite its exterior-only locked access; accordingly, the evidence supported second-degree burglary and the denial of Stewart’s directed-verdict motion, and the conviction was affirmed.


Stewart v. Commonwealth, 793 S.W.2d 859 (1990)