531 P.3d 142
Or.2023Background
- Defendant Haley entered Room 307 in Waldschmidt Hall (University of Portland) and stole a briefcase while the room’s occupant had propped the door open and left.
- Room 307 was a fully enclosed, numbered office with four walls, a locking door, a desk, computer, bookcase, and plaque identifying the Associate Director for Major Gifts.
- State charged Haley with second-degree burglary (entering a “building” with intent to commit a crime); trial court denied Haley’s motion for judgment of acquittal and convicted him.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, applying a test focused on shared “function and occupation” between room and parent building and finding Room 307 not a “separate unit.”
- The Oregon Supreme Court granted review, interpreted ORS 164.205(1), and evaluated whether Room 307 qualified as a “separate unit” (thus a “building”) for burglary purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Haley) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of “separate unit” in ORS 164.205(1) | Test should ask whether the space is isolable and structurally distinct from the building | Requires a distinct possessory/ownership interest separate from the building | Court adopts a multifactor test (structure, occupancy, function, layout, appearance); rejects sole ownership or sole function tests |
| Application to Room 307 — sufficiency of evidence for burglary | Room 307 was physically isolable, locked, numbered, occupied by a single administrator, and functioned as an office — thus a separate unit | Room’s function and occupation were shared with the university; not a separate unit | Evidence sufficient for a reasonable factfinder to find Room 307 a separate unit; trial court’s denial of judgment of acquittal and conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Reed, 339 Or 239 (standard for reviewing denial of judgment of acquittal)
- State v. Rodriguez, 283 Or App 536 (Court of Appeals’ prior focus on function and occupation)
- State v. Kurtz, 350 Or 65 (interpretation of statutory examples and “including” as nonexclusive)
- State v. Henderson, 366 Or 1 (history and evolution of Oregon burglary statutes)
- PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606 (statutory interpretation—context and related provisions)
- State v. Plowman, 314 Or 157 (statutory clarity and notice principles)
- State v. McDowell, 352 Or 27 (legislative intent and statutory construction)