State v. Crites

West Virginia Supreme Court

State v. Crites

156 S.E. 847, 110 W. Va. 36, 1931 W. Va. LEXIS 9

CourtWest Virginia Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 27, 1931

Docket6907

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 156 S.E. 847 (State v. Crites) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering West Virginia Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Crites, 156 S.E. 847, 110 W. Va. 36, 1931 W. Va. LEXIS 9 (W. Va. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Maxwell, Judge:

Tbe defendant stands convicted of burglary and is under sentence of five years’ confinement in tbe penitentiary. Tbe *37 conviction is based upon an indictment charging him, in the first count, with entering without breaking, and, in the second count, with breaking and entering, in the nighttime, “a certain chicken house, the same being an outhouse belonging to Rebecca Borror, the said chicken house not then and there being a dwelling house, but then and there being an outhouse adjoining the dwelling house, of the said Rebecca Borror,” and of stealing therefrom one chicken hen of the value of one dollar. The indictment is based upon section 11, chapter 145, Barnes’ Code, 1923.

Evidence on which the state relies warranted the jury in believing that in the nighttime the defendant visited the chicken roost of Mrs. Borror, inserted his hand through a hole in the structure which sheltered the chickens and took one therefrom. The evidence further shows that this structure was .from three to four feet long and about four feet high (width not shown). One witness testified: “It looks to me something like a box, with some boards nailed up together.” This structure was not an outhouse nor a' building; it was a mere coop. Theft of fowls from a coop is not burglary. Gunter v. State, (Ark.) 116 Am. St. Rep. 85. The statute, in making it a felony of high degree to burglarize an outhouse adjoining a dwelling house or occupied therewith, must, in all reason, be interpreted to refer to a structure which is in reality a building within the ordinary accepted meaning of that word, and certainly the common understanding of the meaning of a building would, at the very least, exclude a structure into which an adult human being could not enter erect and in which he would scarcely have sufficient room to turn around.

We reverse the judgment, set aside the verdict and award the defendant a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Maxwell, Judge:

Tbe defendant stands convicted of burglary and is under sentence of five years’ confinement in tbe penitentiary. Tbe *37 conviction is based upon an indictment charging him, in the first count, with entering without breaking, and, in the second count, with breaking and entering, in the nighttime, “a certain chicken house, the same being an outhouse belonging to Rebecca Borror, the said chicken house not then and there being a dwelling house, but then and there being an outhouse adjoining the dwelling house, of the said Rebecca Borror,” and of stealing therefrom one chicken hen of the value of one dollar. The indictment is based upon section 11, chapter 145, Barnes’ Code, 1923.

Evidence on which the state relies warranted the jury in believing that in the nighttime the defendant visited the chicken roost of Mrs. Borror, inserted his hand through a hole in the structure which sheltered the chickens and took one therefrom. The evidence further shows that this structure was .from three to four feet long and about four feet high (width not shown). One witness testified: “It looks to me something like a box, with some boards nailed up together.” This structure was not an outhouse nor a' building; it was a mere coop. Theft of fowls from a coop is not burglary. Gunter v. State, (Ark.) 116 Am. St. Rep. 85. The statute, in making it a felony of high degree to burglarize an outhouse adjoining a dwelling house or occupied therewith, must, in all reason, be interpreted to refer to a structure which is in reality a building within the ordinary accepted meaning of that word, and certainly the common understanding of the meaning of a building would, at the very least, exclude a structure into which an adult human being could not enter erect and in which he would scarcely have sufficient room to turn around.

We reverse the judgment, set aside the verdict and award the defendant a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 S.E. 847, 110 W. Va. 36, 1931 W. Va. LEXIS 9, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-crites-wva-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack