State v. Crites

3 Citing cases

  1. State v. Stone

    33 S.E.2d 144 (W. Va. 1945)   Cited 4 times

    Even after the indictment charging that the structure entered was a house or other premises, coming within said section, the question whether it was, in fact, such a structure or other premises, is a matter that may be submitted to the jury. State v. Crites, 110 W. Va. 36, 156 S.E. 847; State v. Neff, 122 W. Va. 549, 11 S.E.2d 171. In those cases it was held that the entry was not into a structure coming within those defined by the pertinent statute; and in both cases it was held that by an outhouse was meant a building at least "large enough for an adult to enter erect and to turn around comfortably within."

  2. State v. Neff

    11 S.E.2d 171 (W. Va. 1940)   Cited 4 times

    State v. Randall, 36 Wn. 438, 78 P. 998. We held in State v. Crites, 110 W. Va. 36, 156 S.E. 847, that the word "outhouse" was so used, and, in effect, that it meant a building constructed at least large enough for an adult to enter erect and to turn around comfortably within. The State, failing to show the height of the structure in question, did not prove it to be a house at all.

  3. State v. Deitchler

    75 Wn. App. 134 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 11 times
    In State v. Deitchler, 75 Wn. App. 134, 876 P.2d 970, 971-72 (1994), the Washington Court of Appeals held that a container similar to the fishing reel display case at issue here did not qualify as a building.

    6 (C.M.A. 1966) (sailor's personal locker not a "structure" for purposes of unlawful entry); People v. Knight, 204 Cal.App.3d 1420, 1423, 252 Cal.Rptr. 17, 19-20 (1988) (large tool box on wheels not a "building" for purposes of burglary — "If this is a `building,' then so is a clothes dryer"); State v. Williams, 409 N.W.2d 187, 188 (Iowa 1987) (according to statute, space "too small or not designed to allow a person to physically enter or occupy it" not sufficient for burglary; however, statute inapplicable where defendant entered enclosed bed of pickup truck); State v. Bybee, 109 N.M. 44, 46, 781 P.2d 316, 318 (Ct. App. 1989) (soft drink vending machine not a "structure" for purposes of burglary statute); People v. Lamphere, 219 A.D. 422, 219 N.Y.S. 390 (1927) (gas pump not a "building" for purposes of burglary); Stoddard v. State, 120 Tex.Crim. 55, 47 S.W.2d 281 (1932) (portable dynamite box, 3 feet by 3 feet by 3-1/2 feet, not a "structure" or "building" for purposes of burglary); State v. Crites, 110 W. Va. 36, 37, 156 S.E. 847 (1931) ("structure into which an adult human being could not enter erect" not a "building" for purposes of burglary); 12A C.J.S. Burglary § 27, at 211 (1980). In contrast, cases finding a structure or building include United States v. Wickersham, 10 M.J. 615, 616 (A.F.C.M.R. 1980) (for purposes of unlawful entry, "structure" is place that "might reasonably be capable of being substantially entered by a human being"), aff'd, 14 M.J. 404 (C.M.A. 1983); People v. Buyle, 22 Cal.App.2d 143, 70 P.2d 955 (1937) (underground powder magazine, 6 feet 6 inches high, 7 feet wide, 36 feet long, constituted "building" for purposes of burglary); In re Welfare of R.O.H., 444 N.W.2d 294 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989) (ministorage unit constituted "building" for purposes of burglary); State v. Handley, 116 Or. App. 591, 843 P.2d 456 (1992) (carport storage locker 4 feet wide, 9 feet long, 7 feet high, constituted "building" for purposes of burglary); State v. Barker, 86 Or. App. 394, 739 P.2d 1045 (1987) (miniwarehou