390 P.3d 1104
Or. Ct. App.2017Background
- Defendant lived with his parents in a three‑bedroom house; parents owned the house; defendant had a key and his own bedroom and was free to come and go.
- Parents shared a locked bedroom with a deadbolt and metal reinforcement to secure firearms stored in the closet; only parents had keys and defendant was not permitted in that bedroom when the door was closed (but could enter when parents were present).
- Parents left the house overnight with their bedroom door locked and later discovered the door broken; defendant had taken a wallet and a firearm from the locked bedroom and was later arrested.
- Defendant was indicted and convicted of first‑degree burglary (entering a dwelling with intent to commit theft while armed) and other offenses; he moved for judgment of acquittal on burglary grounds after the state’s case, arguing the parents’ locked bedroom was not a separate “building”/“unit” and thus not a “dwelling.”
- The trial court denied the motion; on appeal the court reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and evaluated whether the bedroom qualified as a separate unit (and thus a separate building/dwelling) under ORS 164.205(1).
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parents’ locked bedroom within the single‑family house is a "separate unit" and thus a "building" (so it can be a "dwelling") under ORS 164.205(1) | The bedroom functioned as a self‑contained unit: secured by keyed lock and reinforcement, had a separate function (private sleeping space and firearm storage), and had separate occupation (parents controlled access) | The bedroom was part of the family residence, not a separate apartment/unit; defendant lived there with access, parents’ lock did not render the room a distinct, self‑contained unit | Court held bedroom was not a separate unit or building; lock alone insufficient; reversed first‑degree burglary conviction and granted MJOA on that count |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Macon, 249 Or. App. 260 (Or. App. 2012) (storage room with separate access, function, and occupation found to be a separate unit)
- State v. Jenkins, 157 Or. App. 156 (Or. App. 1998) (area behind a bar not a separate unit; function inseparable from tavern)
- State v. Davis, 261 Or. App. 38 (Or. App. 2014) (office suite with distinct use and physical identity can qualify as a separate unit)
- State v. Pena, 183 Or. App. 211 (Or. App. 2002) (discussed factors for whether a rented room is a separate building; outcome decided on other grounds)