State v. Barker
86 Or.App. 394, 1987 Ore. App. LEXIS 4132, 739 P.2d 1045 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Oregon's burglary statutes, the term "building" encompasses both its ordinary meaning (a permanent, roofed, and walled structure used for storage) and explicitly treats each self-contained unit within a larger building as a separate building for burglary purposes. When separate units within a commercial storage facility are leased to different parties and require distinct acts of entry, each entry or attempted entry constitutes a separate and punishable offense.
Facts:
- The business burglarized was a commercial storage facility known as the Mini-Warehouse, comprised of several separate buildings enclosed by a chain-link fence.
- Each of the Mini-Warehouse buildings consisted of self-contained storage units which were rented as individual storage spaces.
- Each storage unit was rented by a different individual.
- Defendants cut the locks on three of these individual storage units.
- Defendants entered and stole property from one of the storage units.
- Defendants attempted to enter the other two storage units.
Procedural Posture:
- Defendants were jointly indicted for burglary and attempted burglary.
- Defendants moved in the trial court for separate trials, which the court denied.
- At the close of all evidence, defendants moved for directed verdicts, contending the storage units were not "buildings" under the burglary statutes.
- After a trial to the court without a jury, the trial court found defendants guilty of attempted burglary of two units, a completed burglary of one unit, and criminal mischief.
- Defendants appealed their convictions to the Oregon Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the term "building" under Oregon's burglary statutes (ORS 164.215 and 164.205(1)) include individual self-contained storage units within a larger commercial storage facility, such that the entry or attempted entry into multiple such units constitutes separate offenses?
Opinions:
Majority - Richardson, P. J.
Yes, individual self-contained storage units within a commercial storage facility are considered "buildings" under Oregon's burglary statutes, and the entry or attempted entry into multiple such units constitutes separate offenses. The court first addressed the definition of "building" under ORS 164.205(1), which includes its "ordinary meaning" and specifies that "Where a building consists of separate units...each unit is...a separate building." The court rejected the defendants' argument that the statutory provision should be construed solely in light of the purpose of protecting against invasion of premises likely to terrorize occupants, stating that this position "ignores the plain language of ORS 164.205(1)." Referencing dictionary definitions and previous case law (State v. Essig), the court affirmed that the ordinary meaning of "building" includes stationary structures used for storage. Furthermore, the court found the individual storage units, which were large enough for a human to enter and move about, to be reasonably encompassed within the term "rooms," a specific example of "units" listed in the statute. Consequently, each storage unit was deemed a "separate building." Regarding the question of multiple offenses, the court cited the principle that when the same conduct or criminal episode violates only one statute but involves two or more victims, there are generally as many separately punishable offenses as there are victims (State v. Gilbert). Since the defendants attempted to enter two separate units and entered a third, all leased to three separate parties, and broke a lock on each unit, this indicated "three independent criminal objectives." Thus, the convictions for separate offenses were proper. The court did concede that an award of $45 in restitution for the Mini-Warehouse manager's lost time testifying was improper.
Analysis:
This case provides crucial clarity on the interpretation of "building" within burglary statutes, specifically extending the definition to individual units within commercial storage facilities. It reinforces that legislative intent, as expressed through plain language and specific examples in statutory definitions, takes precedence over broader policy rationales when the text is clear. Furthermore, it solidifies the principle that distinct acts targeting separate victims or distinct areas, even within a continuous criminal episode, can lead to multiple, independently punishable offenses, especially when discrete actions (like breaking separate locks) indicate independent criminal objectives. This interpretation protects commercial storage facility owners and renters and ensures appropriate accountability for property crimes.
