## Facts

- Mary Linton kept a chicken house on her property.
- The chicken-house door was ordinarily left propped open about 15–18 inches with a fence post and brick.
- The opening, as left, was not wide enough for a person to enter without manipulating the door further.
- During the night, Goins entered the chicken house and stole chickens.
- The next morning, the door was found open about one-half to two-thirds of the way, and the fence post and brick used to prop it were displaced.
- The prosecution argued Goins further opened the partially open door to gain entry, satisfying burglary’s “breaking” element.
- Goins argued that entering through a door already open or partly open was not a “breaking,” and he requested a jury instruction requiring acquittal on that basis.
- The trial court refused the requested instruction, and the jury convicted Goins of burglary.

## Issues

1. Whether further opening a door that is already partially open, to gain entry and commit a felony, constitutes a “breaking” for burglary.
2. Whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury that a preexisting open or partially open door required acquittal for lack of “breaking.”

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the burglary conviction.
- The court held that further opening an already partially open door to effect entry constitutes a sufficient “breaking” for burglary.
- The court concluded the evidence supported a finding that Goins applied force to enlarge the opening (as shown by the door’s greater opening and displaced props).
- The court held the requested instruction was an incorrect statement of law and was properly refused.

## Legal Principles

- Burglary “breaking” does not require damage or violent force; any physical force, however slight, used to remove an obstruction or enlarge an opening to enter is sufficient.
- A door that is ajar can still present an obstruction to bodily entry; widening it to enter satisfies the “breaking” element.
- A defendant is not entitled to a jury instruction that treats the mere fact of a preexisting partial opening as defeating “breaking” as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a burglary conviction where the defendant widened a partially open chicken-house door to enter and steal, holding that such minimal force constitutes a “breaking” and that an instruction requiring acquittal merely because the door was partly open was properly refused.


Goins v. State, 90 Ohio St. 176, 107 N.E. 335 (Ohio 1914)