492 P.3d 95
Or. Ct. App.2021Background
- Defendant and his sister (B) lived in a two‑bedroom house rented from their uncle; they shared common areas but each had a private bedroom.
- B paid her portion of rent directly to the uncle; defendant’s share was paid by the uncle and/or their mother.
- B kept her bedroom door locked, had exclusive occupation, and expressly prohibited defendant from entering; defendant had no key.
- Defendant kicked in B’s locked bedroom door and sprayed bleach on some of her clothing; he admitted the act to police.
- He was convicted by the trial court of first‑degree burglary (ORS 164.225) and second‑degree criminal mischief; he moved for judgment of acquittal on burglary, arguing the bedroom was not a separate “building”/“dwelling.”
- The trial court denied the MJOA; on appeal the court affirmed, finding the bedroom could be a separate building given the totality of facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether B’s locked bedroom in a single‑family house was a "building" (and thus a "dwelling") under ORS 164.205, making entry first‑degree burglary. | The bedroom was a separately rented, self‑contained, secured unit with exclusive occupation — therefore a separate "building" and a "dwelling." | A bedroom in a single‑family home is not a separate building/dwelling; a lock alone cannot convert a bedroom into a separate unit. | Affirmed. A reasonable factfinder could find the room was a separate building given separate rent payment, exclusive occupation, secure access, and separate function. |
| Preservation / property interest and due process arguments raised first on appeal. | State: those points were undeveloped or not preserved and need not be considered. | Defendant argued B lacked a cognizable property interest and asserted a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim. | Court rejected/declined to address those undeveloped, appellate‑only arguments. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Rodriguez, 283 Or. App. 536 (Or. Ct. App. 2017) (sets multi‑factor approach to whether a unit within a building is a separate "building," focusing on rent, self‑containment, secure access, separate function, and exclusive occupation)
- State v. Macon, 249 Or. App. 260 (Or. Ct. App. 2012) (unit is separate when it has secure physical access, separate function, and separate occupation)
- State v. Jenkins, 157 Or. App. 156 (Or. Ct. App. 1998) (area not separate when physical access is unsecured and function is inseparable from parent building)
- State v. Davis, 261 Or. App. 38 (Or. Ct. App. 2014) (separately rented office suite is a separate unit under ORS 164.205)
- State v. Pena, 183 Or. App. 211 (Or. Ct. App. 2002) (dictum noting factors such as physical access, self‑containment, and individual rental matter to the separate‑building inquiry)