Submitted June 1, 2018
From York County Eugene C. Griffith, Jr., Circuit Court
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior Assistant
Deputy Attorney General Megan Harrigan Jameson, of Columbia;
and Solicitor Kevin S. Brackett, of York, all for Appellant.
Appellate Defender David Alexander, of Columbia, for
State challenges the circuit court's pre-trial dismissal
of John Kenneth Massey, Jr.'s first-degree burglary
indictment, arguing the circuit court lacked authority to
quash the indictment because evidence existed to support the
charge. We affirm.
and Procedural History
Callahan (Victim) used a building on his uncle's property
in Rock Hill for storage. Victim lived with his parents next
door to the property; his parents' home is approximately
forty-five feet away from the storage building.
was arrested following the theft of a four-wheeler from the
storage building. The York County grand jury indicted Massey
for criminal conspiracy, first-degree burglary, and grand
larceny. The first-degree burglary indictment alleged Massey
entered "the outbuilding appurtenant to and within 200
yards of the dwelling of [Victim]." However, the grand
jury later issued an amended indictment, which simply stated
Massey entered "the dwelling of [Victim]."
moved to quash the first-degree burglary indictment, arguing
the storage building was not appurtenant to Victim's
residence because it was on a separate parcel of land, and it
was used for Victim's business, not as a dwelling.
testified the land in the area was "family land,"
once owned by his grandfather, who gave his parents five
acres to build the home in which Victim resides. Victim
claimed his mother inherited the surrounding property upon
her grandfather's death, but it was never titled in her
name because "it's just family land. There's no
need to change the land over. So we just left it in the farm
name, which is . . . my uncle, Bill."
Victim runs a business from the family property, he testified
he did not use the storage building for business operations,
stating, "I operate a waterproofing and grading company
. . . . We meet there at the-at the land in the mornings. And
from there we, you know, go off to our jobs." Victim
explained that the sign for "Callahan Waterproofing
& Construction" listing his business's contact
information on the exterior of the storage building was
"to just, you know, display [his] name." Although
Victim admitted he used the building to "work on
stuff" related to his business, he claimed the tools do
not leave the storage building when he goes to a job site.
Victim further testified he and his father primarily use the
storage building for belongings such as four-wheelers, boats,
State argued the storage building was appurtenant to the
family dwelling because it was within two hundred feet of
Victim's residence. Under the State's theory, Uncle
Bill's ownership of the land was irrelevant because
burglary is a crime against possession and habitation, not
circuit court granted Massey's motion to quash the
indictment, noting Victim did not own either parcel of land
or the storage building bearing the name of his business. The
circuit court explained that although the storage building
was in close proximity to Victim's parents' home, it
was on a separate piece of property and titled in someone
else's name. The court elaborated, "that building is
an outbuilding. It's a-looks like a butler building to
me. And  has a sundry of things in it. And I just don't
believe it's ...