IRAC Analysis
IRAC Analysis Defendant Carl Clay entered the partially open door of a motel room around five o’clock pm with the intent to steal a television to replace his broken one. To convict Clay as guilty of burglary, he must meet the stipulations stated in the General Laws chapter 228 numbers one and two. The first law defines burglary as the breaking and entering of a dwelling at nighttime with the intent to commit a felony. The second law defines a felony as the theft of personal property over the value of $500; theft of personal property less than $500 is classified as a misdemeanor. We know Clay was in the motel room around five pm with the intent to steal the TV, as he was caught trying to walk out with it in his hands. We also know Clay did not leave the motel’s property with the TV. For Clay to be found guilty, it has to be proven that the crime occurred at nighttime, whether or not he broke in, if the motel is a considered a dwelling, and if the TV’s cost is based on the retail price or current market value. According to the facts, he was at the motel at five pm and waited until he saw the woman leaving her room before entering. From this, we can estimate that the actual time he entered the room was between five and six pm. Based on the time, the question is whether Clay entered the room “at nighttime”. Webster’s Dictionary defines nighttime as the time from dusk to dawn when no sunlight is visible. The crime took place on September 10, 2010, during September it is not dark between five and six pm and therefore does not agree with the definition of nighttime. However, the purpose of the statute stating nighttime is because people are usually home during the night, and the burglary could lead to harm of an individual living in the house. Clearly, the resident was at the motel when the crime was committed because she stopped the crime from occurring. This element is not satisfied because it does not fit the definition of the word nighttime, because