People v. Beauchamp 

Defendants' conviction for burglary had been wrongly reduced, as element of knowing entry into vehicle had been proven by circumstantial evidence. Rear door lock on burglary victim's vehicle had been punched out, and hatchback window was missing and was in the rear of a nearby vehicle, which Defendants then started to drive away. An entry may be accomplished by "breaking the close" with an instrument, rather than the defendant's person, if done with the intention of using the instrument to commit the intended crime. State proved that passenger participated in burglary, as it was a reasonable inference that his participation would have been necessary given size of window and that he was in car with other Defendant. (KILBRIDE, THOMAS, GARMAN, and KARMEIER, concurring; BURKE and FREEMAN, dissenting.)