State v. Taylor
2015 Ore. App. LEXIS 631, 271 Or.App. 292, 350 P.3d 525 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A partially enclosed, roofed structure that is physically connected to and integral to a residential house, and which is regularly used by occupants, constitutes a "dwelling" for purposes of first-degree burglary, even if it does not contain sleeping quarters or direct access to the main living area.
Facts:
- The homeowners owned a residence in Portland that included a "garden room" or "breezeway" connecting a two-story house with a two-story, two-car garage.
- The breezeway shared a wall with both the house and the garage, and the garage's roof dipped down to form the breezeway's roof, extending to meet the side of the house.
- The breezeway had a back wall with windows and a door leading to a backyard, and a front wall with a doorless archway, making it mostly enclosed.
- While there was no direct door from inside the breezeway to the house, a covered landing next to the house's side door allowed a person to walk from the house, onto the landing, and through the archway into the breezeway while remaining under cover.
- The homeowners regularly used the breezeway to store nonperishable food, empty cans, tools, and furniture, as a dog run, and for access to their garage and backyard.
- One night, after noticing items moved in the breezeway earlier, a homeowner heard a noise there and confronted defendant inside the breezeway.
- The homeowner, armed with a shotgun, shot defendant in the shoulder as defendant ran toward him, and defendant subsequently fled on a bicycle.
- Defendant had entered the breezeway with the intent to steal pop cans and had moved the homeowners’ table saw.
- One of the homeowners testified that he viewed the breezeway as part of his house.
Procedural Posture:
- Defendant was charged with two counts of first-degree burglary.
- Defendant waived his right to a jury trial, and the case was tried to the court (bench trial).
- The trial court found that the breezeway was part of a dwelling and, accordingly, found defendant guilty of Count 1 (first-degree burglary with intent to commit theft).
- The trial court acquitted defendant of Count 2 (first-degree burglary with intent to commit criminal mischief).
- Defendant appealed his judgment of conviction for first-degree burglary (Count 1) to the Oregon Court of Appeals, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to establish that he had entered a 'dwelling'.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a partially enclosed, roofed breezeway that connects a house and an attached garage, shares walls with both, and is used by homeowners for storage and access, considered a "dwelling" for purposes of first-degree burglary under Oregon law?
Opinions:
Majority - NAKAMOTO, J.
Yes, a partially enclosed, roofed breezeway connecting a house and an attached garage, used by homeowners for storage and access, is considered a "dwelling" for purposes of first-degree burglary under Oregon law. The court affirmed the conviction, concluding that sufficient evidence supported the trial court's determination that defendant's entry into the breezeway was an entry into a dwelling. The court interpreted "dwelling" under ORS 164.205(2) as a "building" that is regularly or intermittently occupied by a person lodging therein at night. A "building," under ORS 164.205(1), includes its ordinary meaning: a constructed edifice designed to stand permanently, covering a space of land, usually roofed and "more or less completely enclosed by walls," and serving as a dwelling or other useful structure. The court emphasized that entry into any part of a building in which people reside at night qualifies as entry into a dwelling, citing State v. McKoon (foyer of a fraternity house) and State v. Haas (attached garage) to illustrate that the term "dwelling" is not limited to only sleeping areas. Here, the breezeway, house, and garage were immediately contiguous, physically attached, and organized as a single structure with shared walls and a common roofline. Despite the open archway, the structure was "mostly enclosed by walls." The homeowners regularly occupied the overall building and used the breezeway, indicating it was an integral part of their residence. The court rejected defendant's argument based on legislative history, which contended that the legislature's omission of specific language from the former "dwelling house" definition in the 1971 revision indicated an intent to exclude attached structures. The court found this argument unpersuasive, noting the lack of direct legislative discussion on the change and concluding that the new, broad definitions of "dwelling" and "building" were sufficient to encompass such structures.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the scope of "dwelling" in Oregon's burglary statutes, reinforcing that the definition extends beyond the immediate living or sleeping areas to include other integral, attached, and enclosed structures used by the occupants. The decision limits arguments based on legislative silence regarding statutory revisions, favoring the plain, broad meaning of statutory terms when no explicit legislative intent to narrow scope is present. Future cases involving burglary of attached porches, sunrooms, or similar structures will likely look to this precedent, emphasizing physical connection, enclosure, and regular use by residents as key factors in determining whether a space constitutes a protected "dwelling."
