Burglary in the second degree is currently defined as follows:
Sec. 53a-102. Burglary in the second degree: Class C felony. (a) A person is guilty of burglary in the second degree when such person (1) enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling at night with intent to commit a crime therein, or (2) enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling, while a person other than a participant in the crime is actually present in such dwelling, with intent to commit a crime therein.

A dwelling is defined as follows:
Sec. 53a-100. Definitions. (a) The following definitions are applicable to this part: (1) “Building” in addition to its ordinary meaning, includes any watercraft, aircraft, trailer, sleeping car, railroad car or other structure or vehicle or any building with a valid certificate of occupancy. Where a building consists of separate units, such as, but not limited to separate apartments, offices or rented rooms, any unit not occupied by the actor is, in addition to being a part of such building, a separate building; (2) “dwelling” means a building which is usually occupied by a person lodging therein at night, whether or not a person is actually present…

You are correct, Phil, that prior to the Cheshire incident, the DOC and the Board of Pardons and Parole did not classify a Burglary 2 as a “violent offense” for purposes of parole eligibility – only Burglary 1 and Burglary 2 with a firearm.

Again, increasing the penalty and/or classification for Burglary 2 when someone is home (even if no one is injured, so no Burglary 1) might be a justified response to the public outcry and fear over Cheshire, but making a new statute to criminalize an act that is already criminal is not necessary to achieve that goal and may create other unintended problems.

Not to be a nerd (and maybe inaccurate because I don’t know the proposed text of the proposed statute), but it also might cause double jeopardy problems and/or unintended consequences. For example, if Defendant breaks into a home and occupants are asleep inside, he would be guilty of the new offense “home invasion.” May he be convicted of burglary in addition? Do we intend to create two separate offenses punishing the same conduct, or do we just want a stiffer penalty for one offense?

If it’s the latter, doesn’t burglary become a lesser included offense of home invasion? Are we now saying that when people are not home, it’s a burglary; when people are home, it’s a home invasion? This position may be superficially appealing, but I don’t think it’ll fly without changes to the burglary statute, as well. Right now, burglary covers home invasions when people are home.

Can’t we for once avoid bad law writing and making and just add a sentence to burglary increasing the punishment when people are home??

I bet there’s no duplicate statute on that one.

As if there aren’t enough useless duplicate statutes on the books already.

So what am I missing? Overbroad definition of the crime? Egregious punishment? Too much prosecutorial discretion? 50-year sentences for junkies who steal televisions if the occupant was asleep in the bedroom?