A man convicted of breaking into an ATM at a Meetinghouse Hill Bank branch in Dorchester in 2010 tried to have his sentence overturned because prosecutors failed to prove the ATM was a "depository" for which one could be charged with breaking into.
Nice try, the court told Christopher Doyle - who cited a single, unpublished Michigan ruling that defined "depository" - but if it walks like a duck, etc.:
After hearing all of the evidence, a rational jury could have found that the machine, located in the bank vestibule and targeted by the defendant, was an ATM, that the ATM in question was a depository within the meaning of the statute, and that it was a place where something of value was left. Evaluating this evidence in combination with the defendant's possession of a recently used metal grinding tool, damage to the ATM door hinge, and smoke still lingering in the bank vestibule along with the odor of burnt metal, we are satisfied that the Commonwealth met its burden to prove the charge of breaking into a depository.
Doyle did win a small victory - the court overturned his conviction for malicious destruction of property, arguing that while Doyle did indeed destroy bank property in his 3 a.m. zeal to extract the ATM's money, he did not do so with the "state of mind infused with cruelty, hostility or revenge" required to support a guilty verdict of "malicious" destruction.