State v. Angelo, 385 P.3d 1092

Defendant (a contractor) and a coworker were sent to repair a homeowner’s gas fireplace on the first floor and the crawl space; the homeowner permitted access to those specific areas and the first-floor bathroom.
After an initial visit they left and later returned the same evening to complete work; the homeowner planted bait money and videotaped the home suspecting theft.
Video showed defendant take money and an iPhone from first-floor drawers and then walk toward the stairs to the second floor; items from upstairs were later missing.
Defendant admitted the theft (second-degree theft) but was tried on first-degree burglary (unlawful entry/remain in a dwelling with intent to commit a crime); he moved for judgment of acquittal on the burglary count, arguing no unlawful trespass.
The State’s theory: defendant’s permission was spatially limited to first-floor, crawl space, and garage, so going upstairs exceeded that license and constituted unlawful remaining (trespass) supporting burglary.
The trial court denied the judgment motion; the jury convicted on burglary and found the dwelling was “occupied.” Defendant appealed both sufficiency of trespass and the occupied-dwelling sentencing classification.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to prove defendant "entered or remained unlawfully" (trespass) by going upstairs	Homeowner limited permission to first-floor, crawl space, garage and bathroom; going upstairs exceeded that license, so remaining was unlawful and supports burglary	Permission to enter the home extended to the house generally; homeowner did not expressly forbid upstairs, so no unlawful remaining	Court held evidence sufficient: spatial limits were implied by the areas authorized, so going upstairs exceeded the license and could be trespass supporting burglary
Whether the trial court plainly erred by failing to strike the "occupied dwelling" classification (for sentencing)	Sufficient evidence showed coworker Larson was present in the home or crawl space during the offense, satisfying “occupied”	Defendant argued dwelling was unoccupied because the homeowner was absent; classification should have been struck sua sponte	Court declined plain-error relief: legal question not ‘‘obvious’’ on the record and appellate precedent did not make error apparent

State v. Evans, 267 Or. App. 762 (Or. Ct. App. 2014) (upholding burglary conviction where defendant exceeded express spatial permission to use a bathroom and entered a bedroom)
State v. Holte, 170 Or. App. 377 (Or. Ct. App. 2000) (holding that violating an express condition of stay in the house revoked license to remain and supported burglary)
State v. Hartfield, 290 Or. 583 (Or. 1981) (criminal trespass is an essential element of burglary)
State v. Werner, 281 Or. App. 154 (Or. Ct. App. 2016) (standard for reviewing denial of judgment of acquittal and discussion of trespass theory distinction)
State v. Johnson, 116 Or. App. 252 (Or. Ct. App. 1992) (defining "occupied" for sentencing guidelines as someone being inside the building at time of burglary)
State v. Brown, 310 Or. 347 (Or. 1990) (criteria for when an error is "apparent on the record" for plain-error review)
State v. Gaines, 346 Or. 160 (Or. 2009) (statutory construction principles for discerning legislative intent)