City of Eugene v. Adams
495 P.3d 187
Or. Ct. App.2021Background
- Defendant (homeless) slept in front of a private building elevator, blocking employee access; cited for second‑degree criminal trespass under Eugene Code 4.807.
- At trial defendant moved to dismiss, arguing the Eighth Amendment (and Oregon Art I, §16) forbids criminalizing homelessness‑related conduct.
- The city moved in limine to exclude a necessity (choice‑of‑evils) defense; the trial court granted the motion and refused a necessity jury instruction.
- Defendant testified to generalized, ongoing safety risks of sleeping outdoors, that he had VA income and was eligible for VA housing but declined it due to objections to case management, and had no specific fear of persons or imminent harm on the night in question.
- The trial court found the evidence failed to show the imminence required for necessity; the court of appeals affirmed, holding the Eighth Amendment does not bar enforcement of private‑property trespass laws against the homeless and necessity was properly excluded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Eighth Amendment bars prosecution of trespass on private property by homeless persons | Enforcement is lawful; Eighth Amendment rationale in Martin applies to public camping, not private trespass | Criminalizing sleeping on private property because of homelessness violates the Eighth Amendment/Art I, §16 | Affirmed: Eighth Amendment/Art I, §16 do not prohibit enforcing private‑property trespass laws against the homeless |
| Whether the trial court erred by granting city’s motion in limine excluding necessity defense | Necessity lacks evidentiary support here (no imminent threat) and should be excluded | Necessity should go to the jury because homeless face ongoing serious harms (assault, exposure) | Affirmed: necessity excluded—defendant’s evidence showed only generalized, non‑imminent harms |
| Whether the court erred by refusing a necessity jury instruction | No instruction warranted since no admissible evidence of imminent threat | Jury should have been instructed if any evidence supported necessity | Affirmed: no instruction required because defendant failed to present imminent‑harm evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Martin v. City of Boise, 920 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2019) (Eighth Amendment analysis applied to bans on public camping by homeless)
- Billings v. Gates, 323 Or. 167 (Or. 1996) (Oregon Art I, §16 parallels the Eighth Amendment in cruel‑and‑unusual analysis)
- State v. Seamons, 170 Or. App. 582 (Or. Ct. App. 2000) (elements required to assert necessity defense)
- State v. Taylor, 123 Or. App. 343 (Or. Ct. App. 1993) (definition of imminent threat for necessity)
- State v. Freih, 270 Or. App. 555 (Or. Ct. App. 2015) (threat must exist at time of offense for necessity)
- State v. Miles, 197 Or. App. 86 (Or. Ct. App. 2005) (standard for whether defendant produced evidence to support a defense)