Agreed, but the urban legends I’ve heard are when a burglar falls through a skylight on a roof or trips on a garden hose left strewn across the yard. From what I have seen those cases are FALSE and a homeowner would not be liable in those situations as simple negligence is not enough for a trespasser to recover damages. However, if the mailman tripped on the garden hose it would be a different story.
burglary at common law was breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony, which often was theft; but, the accused did not actually need to commit a felony in the premises to be guilty of burglary. so it’s irrelevant if the person stole an illegal substance in the course of the burglary.
(a) the case of falling through the skylight, IIRC, was in California. A juvenile was walking on the roof of a school and walked on a glass skylight that had been painted over. The issue was not whether he should have been there, it was that a pane of glass that looked like a floor was a serious danger to anyone. Kids are curious and get into places they should not all the time. You cannot escape liability, say, by putting a deep pit on your property, putting a thin plywood over it, and saying “he should not have been trespassing”.
(b) The problem in charging B the Burgled Guy is establishing “beyond reasnable doubt” that the goods came from there. The police have the goods, but no real proof they were in A’s house. If all they police have is the word of one person, an admitted thief who is being charged (and might want to strike a deal to get a lighter sentence, say) then I would not want to be convictd on his say-so. He-said-he-said usually does not warrant a conviction. If based on the information a search finds further (physical) evidence, then that may corroborate the story and B will be convicted. On A’s word alone - no. If B is smart, he’ll clean up all evidence ASAP once he finds the goods gone, knowing the police could be the next knock.
Just because A stole from 123 Main St., does not mean that everything in his possession came from there. If he was caught climbing out the window, that might help; but he could have brought his stash with him while committing a burglary. (in fact “possession”, within a room with several people in it, becomes a whole 'nother topic…)
It all boils down to what the judge or jury will believe.
This type of situation was in the news a month or two ago. Thieves stole a bunch of CDs from a guy’s house, and found kiddy porn on one. They turned it over to the police, were charged for the burglary, and the police executed a search warrant on the guy’s house and found more kiddy porn on his computer.
The guy was a freaking idiot. He came into a police station and confessed to burglary, and then was stunned that he was charged for it.
And the guy is a criminal himself, he has the absolute gall to break into someone elses home, yet he’s disgusted by drug dealers? :rolleyes:
Well, at my high school, one kid got into a fight with another kid for stealing his weed during class. And he publicly shouted out “YOU STOLE MY WEED! I’LL KILL YOU” in front of several faculty, and also I believe the School Resource Officer (aka Cop).
The fact they turned it over voluntarily unsolicited is probably a detail that helps convince us they are telling the truth. Of course, if they didn’t turn it over, and later they were found with it - they could be charged with possession too.
The fact that the police found the corroborating additional material at the guy’s house backs up the story.
The other issue, is of course, what was on the disks. If the guy was making his own, and the setting or victims were identifiable; or his fingerprints were on it - that’s hard evidence.
Just some