- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Civil Law
- Date Filed: 07-14-2021
- Case #: A172926
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Kamins, J. for the Court; Lagesen, P.J.; & James, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Defendant appealed a conviction of one count second-degree burglary. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal. Defendant argued that the State failed to prove that a garbage pit fits the definition of a building under the state’s burglary statute. The State responded by asserting the garbage pit fits the expanded definition under the statute because it has underground cemented walls, a roof, and was mostly enclosed. A building, as defined by ORS 164.205(1), can be a structure that is adapted to accommodate business operations. The Court held that the garbage pit did not satisfy the expanded definition of a building under ORS 164.205(1). The Court reasoned that the building was not mostly enclosed, nor had it been adapted to accommodate business operations. The Court refused to consider a garbage pit with a roof supported by stilts and no enclosing walls as a building. The Court also recognized that the unenclosed structure was built for the purpose it served and had not been adapted, thus failing to meet the expanded definition of a building. Reversed and remanded.