Caseflicks

West Virginia Supreme Court • 1940

State v. Neff

11 S.E.2d 171 | 122 W. Va. 549 | 1940 W. Va. LEXIS 92

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case requires the State to prove both that an alleged outbuilding is truly an outhouse and that it has the statutory connection to the dwelling before a burglary conviction can stand.

Background

The two Neffs were convicted of burglary for allegedly breaking into a small chicken structure at night and stealing J. A. Trent’s chickens, valued at $30. The indictment characterized the structure as a chicken house—an outhouse adjoining Trent’s dwelling house.

The proof described the structure as a small building with a floor measuring roughly four and a half by five feet. It had a hinged, chained door, but the State offered no evidence of its height or other facts showing that an adult could enter it upright. The evidence also placed it across a public road from Trent’s dwelling, which itself stood about seventy-five feet back from the road; the record did not establish the structure’s precise distance from either the road or the house. A jury found the Neffs guilty, and the trial court sentenced them to the penitentiary. The defendants sought review.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the State proved that the small chicken structure was an "outhouse" capable of being burglarized under West Virginia’s burglary statute.

Holding

No. The State did not establish that the structure was a house or outhouse within the statute’s meaning.

Reasoning

West Virginia’s burglary statute covers a dwelling house and an "outhouse adjoining thereto or occupied therewith." The Court treated those terms according to their ordinary meaning, consistent with its earlier decision in State v. Crites.

Under Crites, an outhouse must be a building sufficiently large for an adult to enter erect and turn around comfortably. Although witnesses called the structure a chicken house, the State proved only its very small floor dimensions and gave no evidence of its height or any other basis from which height could be inferred. That omission failed to establish that the structure was a house at all.

Issue #2

Whether a chicken house located across a public road from the dwelling could qualify as an outhouse "adjoining" the dwelling under the burglary statute.

Holding

No. A structure across a public road and at least roughly one hundred feet from the dwelling cannot fairly be considered adjoining it.

Reasoning

The statutory language distinguishes an outhouse that is "adjoining" the dwelling from one that is "occupied therewith." Because the State proceeded on the allegation that this chicken house adjoined the dwelling, it had to prove the required physical contiguity.

The evidence instead showed that the chicken structure stood across a public road from the Trent home. Even accepting the structure as a house, that separation prevents it from being adjoining under any fair reading of the statute.

The Court explained that the 1882 statutory amendment changed the wording of the earlier rule but did not materially expand burglary to cover a detached structure separated from the dwelling by a public road. Common-law authorities likewise treated an outbuilding across a public road as not part of the owner’s dwelling premises and therefore not a proper subject of burglary.