432 P.3d 388
Or. Ct. App.2018Background
- Defendant (victim's ex) unlawfully entered the victim's dwelling, was seen inside by neighbors and police, and later ran from the house; blood and property damage were found inside.
- Defendant sent angry and self-harm–referencing texts before and after the entry; he later texted the victim asking her not to cooperate with police.
- Police observed a large wound on defendant's arm and cited him for criminal trespass; defendant claimed he had earlier been allowed inside and returned to drink beer.
- Charges: first-degree burglary (alleging intent to commit criminal mischief upon entry), second-degree criminal mischief, third-degree theft, and witness tampering; jury convicted burglary and criminal mischief, acquitted on theft; court granted acquittal on tampering pre-verdict.
- On appeal defendant argued (1) jury-concurrence instruction was required (unpreserved; rejected), and (2) insufficient proof he intended criminal mischief at the moment of entry (preserved; accepted).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there sufficient evidence that defendant had the specific intent to commit criminal mischief at the moment he unlawfully entered or remained in the dwelling (element of first-degree burglary)? | The State: circumstantial evidence (history with victim, anger that day, damage found) permits a reasonable inference he formed the intent before or upon entry. | Defendant: no evidence shows when or where he formed the intent to damage property; damage could have occurred after entry and intent could have formed later. | Reversed burglary conviction: insufficient evidence of intent at the start of the trespass. Court remanded to enter conviction for lesser-included first-degree criminal trespass and for resentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. McKnight, 293 Or. App. 274 (Or. App. 2018) (temporal requirement: intent must be present at start of unlawful entry or unlawful remaining)
- State v. Chatelain, 347 Or. 278 (Or. 2009) (burglary requires proof defendant entered with intent to commit a particular crime)
- State v. J. N. S., 258 Or. App. 310 (Or. App. 2013) (cannot infer specific intent at entry from equivocal facts; later-formed intent insufficient)
- State v. Cole, 290 Or. App. 553 (Or. App. 2018) (use of property after entry does not prove intent at entry)
- State v. Mayea, 170 Or. App. 144 (Or. App. 2000) (evidence of other criminal objectives is insufficient to prove alleged specific intent)
- State v. Martin, 243 Or. App. 528 (Or. App. 2011) (examples of circumstantial evidence that can support a finding of intent to commit a particular crime on entry)