314 P.3d 324
Or. Ct. App.2013Background
- Police suspected defendant of thefts; Officer Daniel ordered defendant to “stop” after seeing him climb a fence and flee.
- Defendant ignored the order, jumped the fence, ran across a neighbor’s yard, and entered the neighbor’s back door and attached garage.
- While inside, defendant told a resident he was hiding from police and asked for help; he left and was arrested within about two minutes of the initial order.
- Defendant was charged with, inter alia, first-degree burglary based on entering a dwelling with intent to commit interfering with a peace officer by refusing a lawful order.
- At trial defendant moved for judgment of acquittal arguing the refusal-to-obey offense was complete when he first disobeyed the order, so he could not have had intent to commit that already-completed crime upon entry; court denied motion and convicted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether burglary may be based on intent to interfere with a peace officer by refusing a lawful order when defendant first disobeyed the order before entering the dwelling | State: defendant could have formed a continuing intent to disobey the order and committed additional violations at later acts (including entry); jury could find intent at entry | Defendant: the refusal-to-obey offense was complete at the fence; cannot be the intended crime upon later entry; continuous-crime theory would absurdly extend liability | Court: Burglary may be based on intent to refuse an officer’s order only if the order, the entry, and the intent occur as part of a single continuous criminal episode; here facts support that finding, so conviction stands |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hall, 327 Or 568 (standard for reviewing denial of judgment of acquittal)
- State v. Chatelain, 347 Or 278 (intent-to-commit-crime-on-entry is distinguishing feature of burglary)
- State v. J. N. S., 258 Or App 310 (legislative purpose of burglary to punish trespass to commit crime)
- State v. Kelly, 5 Or App 103 (intent to commit a crime in the dwelling may be proven circumstantially even if not consummated)
- State v. Batson, 35 Or App 175 (intent to commit a crime inside may exist even if defendant did not know an opportunity would arise)
- State v. Lonergan, 344 Or 15 (escape is complete once custody ends; court distinguished relevance to burglary)