State v. Warner
298 Or. 640, 696 P.2d 1052, 1985 Ore. LEXIS 996 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For an object to be considered an "adapted" burglar's tool under ORS 164.235, it must be physically altered or modified from its original design to facilitate a forcible entry or theft. An object's mere capability of being used for such a purpose or its actual use in a specific burglary is insufficient to satisfy the definition.
Facts:
- The defendant, Warner, located a seven and one-half foot long steel I-beam signpost belonging to the Northwest Natural Gas Company.
- The signpost, with a yellow warning sign still attached, was not physically altered or modified by Warner in any way.
- Warner carried the signpost to a locked barn.
- He then used the signpost as a pry bar to force a hasp and padlock from the barn door, thereby gaining entry.
Procedural Posture:
- Warner was convicted of burglary in the first degree in an Oregon trial court.
- Warner, as appellant, appealed the conviction to the Court of Appeals of Oregon.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, with the State of Oregon as the respondent.
- The Supreme Court of Oregon granted Warner's petition for review.
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 an ordinary, unmodified object, such as a metal signpost, that is used to facilitate a forcible entry qualify as a burglar's tool under the statutory definition of an article "adapted, designed or commonly used" for such purposes, thereby elevating second-degree burglary to first-degree burglary?
Opinions:
Majority - Roberts, J.
No. An ordinary, unmodified object used to facilitate a forcible entry does not qualify as an "adapted" burglar's tool under ORS 164.235. To be considered "adapted," the object must be physically modified from its original design to further the burglarious purpose. The court analyzed the statutory phrase "adapted, designed or commonly used." The signpost was not "designed" for burglary, and the state failed to prove it was "commonly used" for that purpose. The court rejected the state’s argument that "adapted" is synonymous with "capable of being used," reasoning that such an interpretation would eliminate the distinction between first and second-degree burglary, as nearly any forcible entry involves using some object. The statute's structure supports this, as the section on burning devices explicitly includes a "capable of" standard, while the section on other tools does not. Citing New York precedent, from which the Oregon statute derives, the court concluded that "adaptation" requires a physical modification of the object, reflecting a greater criminal commitment that justifies the enhanced penalty.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the definition of a "burglar's tool" for the purpose of sentence enhancement in Oregon. It establishes that the focus must be on the intrinsic character of the object itself—whether it is designed for, commonly used for, or physically altered for a criminal purpose—rather than its incidental use in a particular crime. This ruling raises the evidentiary bar for prosecutors seeking to elevate a burglary charge, requiring them to prove more than just that the defendant used an object of opportunity to gain entry. The case serves as a key precedent for statutory interpretation, emphasizing legislative intent and the distinct meaning of parallel statutory terms.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Warner