Cladd v. State
Supreme Court of Florida
398 So.2d 442 (1981)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
Leroy Cladd (defendant) was charged with burglary and attempted burglary after he broke through the locked door of his wife’s apartment with a crowbar, struck her, and attempted to throw her over the second-floor railing. The following morning, Cladd again attempted to break into his wife’s apartment but fled when the police arrived. Cladd filed a motion to dismiss the charges, claiming that because the victim was his wife, he was licensed or invited to enter her apartment as a matter of law. At the time of the incident, Cladd and his wife had been separated for approximately six months. However, there was no formal separation agreement. Additionally, Cladd had no ownership or possessory interest in his wife’s apartment and at no time lived there. The trial court agreed and dismissed the charges in reliance on Vasquez v. State, 350 So.2d 1094 (Fla. App. 1977). The state appealed. The appellate court reversed and held that although each spouse had a legal right to each other’s company, also known as consortium, such consortium did not include the right to break and enter the other spouse’s dwelling with the intent to commit a criminal offense. Cladd appealed. The Florida Supreme Court granted certiorari to review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Alderman, J.)
Dissent (England, J.)
Dissent (Boyd, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
