## Facts

- Police responded to a residential alarm at Patrick Wheeler’s home in Spokane, Washington.
- Deputies found Gerald Lee Wentz hiding in the backyard.
- Wentz admitted he took a pickup truck without permission, burglarized a friend’s home for a handgun and ammunition, and drove to Spokane intending to confront his ex-wife and her boyfriend.
- Wentz climbed into Wheeler’s backyard, found an unlocked sliding door, opened it, and triggered an alarm; he did not enter the residence.
- Wentz hid under the cover of a boat parked on a trailer in the backyard to wait for the occupants.
- The backyard was enclosed by a six-foot solid wood fence with two padlocked gates; entry required climbing the fence.
- After a bench trial, Wentz was convicted of multiple offenses, including first-degree burglary; the Supreme Court granted review only on the burglary conviction.

## Issues

1. Whether a locked, fenced residential backyard qualifies as a “fenced area” and therefore a “building” under RCW 9A.04.110(5) for purposes of the burglary statute.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient for a rational factfinder to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Wentz entered a “building” when he climbed into the fenced backyard.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the burglary conviction.
- The court held RCW 9A.04.110(5) unambiguously includes a “fenced area” within the definition of “building.”
- The State was not required to prove the fenced area’s principal purpose (e.g., lodging, business, or storage) to treat it as a “building.”
- Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational factfinder could find Wentz unlawfully entered a “building” when he climbed into the locked, enclosed backyard.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory interpretation is reviewed de novo; when statutory language is clear, legislative intent is derived from the text.
- Under RCW 9A.04.110(5), “building” expressly includes a “fenced area,” and courts should not add extra-textual requirements to that term.
- Earlier precedent requiring proof that a fenced area served a purpose analogous to enumerated structures does not control where the legislature later amended the statute to include “fenced area.”
- Evidence is sufficient if, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational factfinder could find each element beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

Because the burglary statute’s definition of “building” plainly includes a “fenced area,” and Wentz unlawfully entered a secured, padlocked, fully enclosed backyard by climbing the fence, the evidence supported the first-degree burglary conviction.


State v. Wentz, 149 Wash. 2d 342, 68 P.3d 282 (Wash. 2003)