Police responding to an alarm caught one burglar as he was coming out the door and found the other burglar under a bed.
In Grand Court last week, Randy Martin was sentenced to seven years imprisonment and Duane Bodden received six years after pleading guilty to aggravated burglary and possession of firearm ammunition without a licence.
Justice Algernon Smith said an important factor he had to bear in mind in sentencing was the nature of the goods stolen: they included a .22 Ruger rifle and 20 rounds of ammunition.
The defendants were charged with possession of an unlicensed firearm in relation to the rifle, but the Crown offered no evidence after they pleaded guilty to the other charges. The rifle had been removed from a locked storage cabinet, but it had not been moved from the house.
Crown Counsel Gail Johnson gave the background to the incident. Other details were added by defence attorneys and by Justice Smith when he passed sentence.
The offences occurred after a George Town resident locked up his house and set the alarm before going off island in late September 2006.
Around 2am on 2 October, the resident received a call from The Security Centre, which monitored the alarm. He advised them to call the police. Officers immediately went to the location and set up a cordon around the area.
Officers saw that the side entrance to the house was open. There was a black bag, which was found to contain a hacksaw and bolt cutters.
Officers then saw Bodden come out from the side door. He had a laptop computer in one hand and a bottle of alcoholic beverage in the other. He was arrested and searched.
Inside his pants pockets he had a British coin, a bracelet, cufflinks, two cell phones, cash and two cheques that had been made out to the occupant.
In his back pocket, Bodden had a knife with a blade over three inches long. It was the carrying of the knife that made the burglary aggravated.
Meanwhile, officers saw another man scurry back inside the house. They entered and found Martin under a bed in a downstairs bedroom.
Ms Johnson said he was searched and a .22 clip of 20 rounds was found in his pocket. Attorney John Furniss said Martin denied having the clip, but accepted it was found near him.
Also nearby, in a transparent storage unit, officers found the rifle. Members of the Scenes of Crime Unit took fingerprints and both men gave DNA samples.
Ms Johnson said the alarm system had been damaged and cost $3,902 to replace.
She also advised that the Firearms Law provides for a sentence of up to 20 years and a fine up to $100,000. A 2005 amendment makes a ten-year sentence mandatory for unlicensed firearms, but ammunition by itself is not subject to the minimum.
On Martin’s behalf, Mr. Furniss said that even though this defendant did not carry any weapon, he had to accept aggravated burglary because it was a joint enterprise.
He said Martin knew that the house’s occupant was not home, so there was no question of harm or threats to anyone.
It was Bodden whose DNA was found on the gun cabinet and crowbar, Mr. Furniss said. Because it was a joint involvement, Martin had to accept that the rifle had been removed from the cabinet upstairs. It didn’t matter whether he moved it or didn’t.
Martin’s previous convictions included burglary and one aggravated burglary, so his history did not help him. But at 34, Martin realised that being in and out of prison was not going to assist him; he intended to get himself sorted out.
Mr. Furniss asked for credit for the guilty pleas, even though the men were caught red-handed.
On behalf of Bodden, Attorney Philip McGhee said that, if not for the knife, the offence would have been a standard burglary in which a repeat offender takes items of relatively small value, some damage is caused by the break-in and there is turmoil inside.
Bodden did have a knife, but not with intent to use it during the burglary, Mr. McGhee said. He had it because he has been addicted to cocaine and crack cocaine for a number of years. He carried the knife to bore holes in cans to use as a pipe to smoke crack.
Mr. McGhee emphasised Bodden’s full and frank admissions. The defendant wanted to apologise to the homeowner for the distress, inconvenience and costs incurred.
He knew what he did was wrong, but his judgment was clouded by his addiction. His motive for taking part was a promise that proceeds would be converted to feed his addiction. Now 37, he wanted to get rid of that addiction.
The judge asked how breaking and entering to steal a gun would affect sentencing.
Mr. Furniss pointed out that the only DNA found on the crowbar, the alarm box and the wood area of the gun butt was Bodden’s. Martin’s DNA and prints did not appear anywhere on those items. Whatever Bodden said to pass the buck was not backed up by physical evidence.
The attorney submitted that no court could rely on someone who was heavily reliant on cocaine. If Bodden went into the witness box and gave evidence, he would have been discredited, Mr. Furniss said.
In his sentencing remarks, Justice Smith went into detail about what he called Bodden’s ‘full confession’.
He said Bodden told exactly what happened on his part: he was invited by Martin to go to this place and Martin said he had been watching it for some time and knew there was a gun and ammo he wanted. He went with Martin because he was promised cocaine.
The judge said Martin was also interviewed and answered almost all of his questions with no comment, as advised by his lawyer. He was entitled to say nothing.
What Bodden said against Martin was not evidence, the judge agreed, but Bodden had explained his role from the beginning.
Domestic burglaries are serious offences because people attach importance to the privacy and security of their homes. Loss of material possessions can be minor compared to the sense of violation and insecurity that an occupant is left with after a burglary, the judge said.
He said it was important to protect the public from offending behaviour that caused such distress. He also attached great importance to the principle of maintaining the public’s confidence in the criminal justice system.
His sentences were based on these principles, the men’s previous convictions and mitigation. Along with prison terms, he ordered each to pay compensation in the sum of $2,000.
Related Videos
