State v. Neal
249 P.3d 211
Wash. Ct. App.2011Background
- Neal was convicted of residential burglary for entering a tool room in an apartment building.
- He argues the tool room was not a dwelling and therefore not the target of residential burglary.
- Evidence showed Neal inside the tool room with a stolen credit card and cocaine.
- The state charged under RCW 9A.52.025(1) defining residential burglary as unlawful entry into a dwelling.
- The court undertook de novo statutory interpretation to determine the meaning of 'dwelling' under Washington law.
- The court applied RCW 9A.04.110(7) and analyzed whether the apartment building qualified as a dwelling; it considered prior cases including Murbach.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the tool room constitutes a dwelling for burglary purposes | Neal: tool room not used for lodging; not a dwelling | State: building used for lodging; entire building qualifies | Yes; the apartment building is a dwelling and evidence supports conviction |
| Whether removing 'portion thereof' from the jury instruction altered the dwelling element | Neal: omission removed dwelling element | State's theory did not rely on 'portion thereof' to prove dwelling | Instruction proper; 'portion thereof' not required for the State's theory |
| Whether the court properly applied the technical terms rule and defined 'dwelling' | Full statutory definition should have been given | Court defined 'dwelling' accurately and not misleading | Proper definition given; no violation of technical terms rule |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bunker, 169 Wash.2d 571, 238 P.3d 487 (2010) (statutory interpretation framework; plain meaning governs)
- State v. J.P., 149 Wash.2d 444, 69 P.3d 318 (2003) (plain meaning and intent govern statutory interpretation)
- State v. Murbach, 68 Wash.App. 509, 843 P.2d 551 (1993) (garage attached to home can be part of a dwelling)
- State v. Redmond, 150 Wash.2d 489, 78 P.3d 1001 (2003) (instructions must not misstate governing law; proper framing of issues)
- State v. Walker, 136 Wash.2d 767, 966 P.2d 883 (1998) (de novo review of statutory interpretation questions)
- State v. Becker, 132 Wash.2d 54, 935 P.2d 1321 (1997) (prohibition on treating a factual matter as established by law in jury instructions)
- State v. Brown, 132 Wash.2d 529, 940 P.2d 546 (1997) (technical terms rule compliance in jury instructions)