¶1dissenting. Technically the smoke-house was not within the curtilage, but our statute has enlarged the common-law definition. Under the facts of this case the question whether the house broken and entered was within the protection of the dwelling was one of fact for the jury. Therefore I dissent from the judgment.
12 Ga. App. 514
Wright v. State
Decided March 18, 1913
Court of Appeals of Georgia · decided 1913-03-18
<p>An outhouse in a field between two and three hundred yards from a mansion or dwelling-house, and used by the owner of the mansion or dwelling-house as a smoke-house or “meat house” for the storage of his meats for domestic purposes, and not within a common enclosure with the dwelling-house, is not an .outhouse “contiguous to or within the curtilage or protection of the mansion or dwelling-house;” and the breaking and entering such an outhouse with intent to steal does not ’ constitute the crime of burglary, but may constitute the offense of larceny from the house.</p>
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1913-03-18
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently July 2012
11 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →