341 P.3d 833
Or. Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant appeals a conviction for first-degree burglary under ORS 164.225 and challenges the denial of a judgment of acquittal.
- The state must prove unlawful entry or remaining, a dwelling, and intent to commit a crime therein.
- The victim granted permission to use the bathroom but not to wander elsewhere in the apartment.
- Defendant stayed in the apartment for about 20 minutes, entered the bedroom area, and stole the victim’s purse.
- The trial court admitted evidence that defendant exceeded the scope of the license, leading to a burglary finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did defendant lose license to stay during burglary? | Cervantes: exceeded license by entering beyond bathroom. | Holte: mere crime inside permitted area cannot become burglary. | Yes; exceeded license, unlawful entry proven. |
| Was entry into the bedroom beyond the invited scope? | License limited to bathroom; bedroom beyond scope. | Permission to be in apartment suffices regardless of room. | Yes; entering bedroom area was beyond consent. |
| Must crime occur within scope of consent to constitute burglary? | Unlawful entry arises when not licensed or privileged. | Burglary requires no revocation of license for entering to commit theft. | Unlawful stay due to scope limitation supports burglary. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Cervantes, 319 Or 121 (1994) (set standard of review for sufficiency with reasonable doubt)
- State v. Holte, 170 Or App 377 (2000) (oral limitations on license to remain can bar unlawful entry)
- State v. Felt, 108 Or App 730 (1991) (proof of unprivileged stay supports burglary verdict)
- State v. Andre, 142 Or App 285 (1996) (elements of burglary require unlawful entry or remaining in a dwelling)