Absolute House V. Dale Hawthorn's Case

• Conclusion o Dale Hawthorn likely did not have an absolute right to enter the apartment of his former fiancé.
• Rules o General Rules
 Alabama Statute states that a person is committing burglary when he enters a house/habitable building without authority and with intent to commit an offense. Two different types of authority exist: absolute right and conditional right.
 Absolute right is dependent on if the defendant is a current occupant of the building. o Case Illustrations:
 In Sears defendant did not have an absolute right to enter house of estranged wife (though he was on the lease too) because he had moved out two months prior.
 In Gauze defendant was found to have an absolute right to enter his own apartment because he had not quit residing there before offense.


 In Caulfield the court concluded the defendant had no absolute right to enter his brother’s house because he had moved out two weeks ago and could no longer be considered an occupant.
• Analysis o Dale Hawthorn’s Case
 Hawthorn’s case is similar to Sears, Davenport, and Caulfield as Hawthorn had quit occupying the apartment for some time (more than several days) before committing the offense. Additionally, all three of those cases find no absolute right though each had some familial type relationship with those occupying building.
 Davenport is also similar because just like Hawthorn, the defendant in Davenport willingly gave up his key to the domicile.
 Gauze contrasts Hawthorn’s case as the defendant in Gauze never stopped occupying his apartment before committing the offense, so he still had an absolute right.
•