State v. Engel

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain Roger Engel's conviction for burglary in the second degree because Western Asphalt's seven-to-eight-acre business yard — only one-third fenced, with the remainder bordered by unfenced sloping terrain — was not a "fenced area" under RCW 9A.04.110(5). Reading the statutorily undefined term "fenced area" by its plain meaning in light of the common law concept of curtilage, the court limited the term to areas completely enclosed by fencing alone or by fencing combined with other structures, rejecting the State's argument that topography could combine with a partial fence to close off an area to the public. It reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded with instructions to vacate the conviction and dismiss the charge.