State v. McKnight, 426 P.3d 669

Defendant stayed as a guest in a friend’s Lincoln City house with initial authorization to enter and possibly stay overnight, but remained for several days.
During his stay, defendant took/consumed the homeowner’s Vicodin.
He was charged with first-degree burglary (alleging unlawful entry or remaining in a dwelling with intent to commit theft).
Trial court denied defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal and convicted him after a court trial.
On appeal, defendant challenged (1) that his continued presence was unlawful and (2) that he had the intent to commit theft at the start of any unlawful trespass; the State conceded insufficiency on intent but argued State v. Pipkin undermined the controlling precedent (State v. J.N.S.).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there sufficient evidence that defendant unlawfully remained in the dwelling?	State: Yes; evidence supports unlawful remaining.	Defendant: Contended evidence insufficient to prove unlawful remaining.	Yes. Court: Evidence supported unlawful remaining.
Must the intent to commit the crime exist at the start of the trespass to sustain burglary?	State: Pipkin allows intent formed at any time during unlawful presence.	Defendant: Under J.N.S., intent must exist at the initiation of the trespass.	Court: J.N.S. remains controlling — intent must exist at start of the trespass.
Did Pipkin implicitly overrule J.N.S.?	State: Argued Pipkin implicitly overruled J.N.S. on timing of intent.	Defendant: J.N.S. should stand; Pipkin did not address timing-of-intent rule.	No. Pipkin did not address that question and did not overrule J.N.S.
Should the court remand for a lesser offense given intent was not proved at trespass start?	State: Did not dispute intent deficiency; argued alternate reading would permit burglary.	Defendant: Requested acquittal or conviction reduced.	Court: Reversed burglary conviction; remanded to enter conviction for first-degree criminal trespass and resentencing.

State v. J.N.S., 258 Or. App. 310 (Or. App.) (holds burglary requires intent at start of the trespass)
State v. Pipkin, 354 Or. 513 (Or.) (explains entry and remaining unlawfully are overlapping ways to show unlawful presence)
State v. White, 341 Or. 624 (Or.) (discussed in construing "remain unlawfully")
State v. Chatelain, 220 Or. App. 487 (Or. App.) (discusses burglary’s essence as intent to commit a crime at time of unlawful entry)
State v. Cunningham, 320 Or. 47 (Or.) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)