## Facts

- Defendants were indicted for burglariously breaking and entering at night a chicken house described as an outhouse adjoining the dwelling of J. A. Trent and stealing chickens valued at about $30.
- The structure was a small building with floor dimensions of approximately 4.5 by 5 feet; the record contained no evidence of its height or interior capacity.
- The chicken house door was hinged and secured by a chain drawn through holes in the door and the building face.
- Trent’s dwelling was set back about 75 feet from a public road; the chicken house was located across the road, but the record did not show the distance from the road or from the dwelling.
- The record did not show any common enclosure (such as a shared fence) connecting the chicken house with the dwelling.
- A jury convicted defendants of burglary, and the trial court imposed penitentiary sentences; defendants sought appellate review challenging the legal sufficiency of proof that the building fit the statute.

## Issues

1. Whether the State proved the chicken house was an “outhouse” within the burglary statute, given the absence of evidence that it was large enough to be a “house.”
2. Whether the State proved the chicken house “adjoined” the dwelling or was “occupied with” it when it was across a public road and the record lacked proof of contiguity or common enclosure.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain burglary convictions under the statute extending burglary to an “outhouse adjoining [the dwelling] or occupied therewith.”

## Decision

- The court reversed the burglary convictions and remanded for a new trial.
- The State’s evidence did not establish the structure was an “outhouse” because it failed to prove facts showing the building qualified as a “house” in the statutory sense.
- Even assuming the structure was a “house,” the evidence did not establish it “adjoined” the dwelling or was “occupied with” it where it was across a public road and no common enclosure or connecting relationship was shown.

## Legal Principles

- When a burglary statute extends beyond the dwelling to an “outhouse,” the prosecution must prove the structure meets the statutory meaning of “outhouse.”
- An “outhouse” for burglary purposes must be a “house” of sufficient size for an adult to enter erect and turn around comfortably; absence of proof on size-related features can defeat the element.
- “Adjoining” and “occupied with” require proof of the statutory relationship between the outbuilding and the dwelling; a building separated by a public road, without proof of contiguity or common enclosure, is not shown to adjoin or be occupied with the dwelling.
- Penal statutes defining burglary elements are applied as written; courts will not extend burglary liability beyond the statutory description without proof satisfying each element.

## Conclusion

The court set aside the burglary convictions because the State did not prove that the small chicken house was a qualifying “outhouse” or that it adjoined or was occupied with the dwelling as required by the statute, and it remanded the case for further proceedings.


State v. Neff, 122 W. Va. 549, 11 S.E.2d 171 (W. Va. 1940)