State v. Wentz

Gerald Wentz (defendant) climbed over a man's backyard fence intending to attack him and was prosecuted for burglary under a statute defining "building" to include "any dwelling, fenced area, vehicle, railway car, cargo container, or any other structure used for lodging or for carrying on business therein, or for the use, sale or deposit of goods"; the trial evidence did not establish the specific purpose for which the backyard was fenced. Wentz, relying on a 1967 case interpreting an older version of the burglary statute that lacked any mention of fenced areas, argued the state needed to prove the fence's purpose was analogous to a business or lodging use; the jury convicted him, and he appealed.