Lexplug logoLexplug

State v. Neff

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia
122 W. Va. 549, 11 S.E.2d 171 (1940)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

For an outhouse to be the subject of burglary under a statute requiring it to be 'adjoining' a dwelling, it must be physically contiguous to the dwelling; an outhouse separated from the dwelling by a public road does not meet this requirement.


Facts:

  • J.A. Trent owned a dwelling house and a separate chicken house.
  • The dwelling house was situated approximately seventy-five feet back from a public road.
  • The chicken house, described as a small structure with a floor space of four and a half by five feet, was located across the public road from the dwelling house.
  • The precise distance between the chicken house and the dwelling was not established, but a public road separated them.
  • The two Neffs were accused of breaking into the chicken house during the night.
  • The Neffs were also accused of stealing chickens valued at $30.00 from the chicken house.

Procedural Posture:

  • The two Neffs were charged with burglary and larceny in a West Virginia trial court.
  • A jury found the Neffs guilty of burglary.
  • The trial court entered a judgment of conviction and sentenced the Neffs to the penitentiary.
  • The Neffs appealed their convictions to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a chicken house located across a public road from a dwelling house qualify as an 'outhouse adjoining thereto' under the West Virginia burglary statute?


Opinions:

Majority - Hatcher, Judge

No, a chicken house located across a public road from a dwelling house does not qualify as an 'outhouse adjoining thereto' under the West Virginia burglary statute. The court traced the evolution of burglary law from the common law, where it protected the habitation and included outhouses 'parcel of' the main dwelling, to the current state statute. The West Virginia statute requires an outhouse to be either 'adjoining thereto [the dwelling-house] or occupied therewith.' The court interpreted the word 'adjoining' in its ordinary sense, which implies contiguity. As the chicken house was separated from the dwelling by a public road, it cannot be considered adjoining. The court referenced common law precedent from other jurisdictions, such as State v. Sampson, holding that an outhouse across a public road is not 'parcel' of the dwelling and thus not subject to burglary. Additionally, the court noted that the state failed to prove the structure was even a 'house' under the definition established in State v. Crites, as no evidence of its height was presented.



Analysis:

This decision narrowly construes the spatial requirements for burglary of an outhouse under West Virginia law, establishing a clear line of demarcation. By holding that a public road severs the contiguity required by the term 'adjoining,' the court limits the statute's application to structures in very close physical proximity to the main dwelling. This precedent requires prosecutors to prove not just common ownership or use, but a specific geographical relationship between the outhouse and the dwelling to secure a burglary conviction under the 'adjoining' prong of the statute. The ruling emphasizes a strict interpretation of statutory language over a broader, functional view of what constitutes a home's curtilage.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query State v. Neff (1940) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for State v. Neff