State v. Haley, 511 P.3d 440

Defendant stole a briefcase from Room 307 (the victim’s office) in Waldschmidt Hall at the University of Portland; Waldschmidt Hall houses administrative offices and is open to the public.
Room 307 was the victim’s individual office (desk, computer, bookcase, guest chairs) with a plaque showing occupant name; the third-floor reception area was listed as Room 300.
The office door locked automatically but happened to be open at the time of the theft.
Defendant was convicted of second-degree burglary (among other offenses) and moved for judgment of acquittal (MJOA) on the burglary charge arguing the office was not a separate “building.”
On appeal the sole remaining legal issue was whether an individual office within a publicly accessible building qualifies as a separate “building” (i.e., a separate unit) under ORS 164.215.
Court of Appeals reversed the burglary conviction, held the office was not a separate unit, and remanded for entry of a conviction for the lesser-included offense of second-degree criminal trespass and for resentencing; other convictions affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Room 307 was a “separate building” (separate unit) for second-degree burglary	Room 307 was an office and thus could be a separate unit qualifying as a building for burglary	Room 307 was integrated with the building’s function and occupancy and therefore not a separate unit	Not a separate unit; office’s use and occupation were shared with the parent building, so burglary conviction reversed
Whether entry into Room 307 was unlawful (open to the public) — supports lesser trespass conviction	The office was private and not open to the public; a reasonable person would not think permission unnecessary	Defendant argued the space appeared open (no barriers, reception area) so entry was not unlawful	Entry was unlawful for purposes of trespass; a reasonable person would not have felt free to enter Room 307 without permission; remand to enter second-degree trespass conviction

State v. Rodriguez, 283 Or App 536 (Or. App.) (defines separate-unit inquiry — whether area is self-contained in access, function, occupation)
State v. Macon, 249 Or App 260 (Or. App.) (storage area with restricted access and distinct function is a separate unit)
State v. Jenkins, 157 Or App 156 (Or. App.) (area functionally integrated with public portion of tavern is not a separate unit)
State v. Perez-Salas, 312 Or App 693 (Or. App.) (room can be separate where use, access, and occupancy are independent)
State v. Chatelain, 220 Or App 487 (Or. App.) (second-degree trespass is a lesser-included offense of second-degree burglary)
State v. Hinton, 209 Or App 210 (Or. App.) (test for whether premises are "open to the public": physical nature, function, custom, notice, and circumstances)
State v. Wiggins, 272 Or App 748 (Or. App.) (remand to enter lesser-included offense where indictment and evidence support it)