State v. Miranda

Under ORS 164.225, to survive a motion for a judgment of acquittal for burglary, the State is required “to plead and prove the specific offense that defendant intended to commit when he unlawfully entered or remained in the house.” State v. Frey, 248 Or App 1 (2012), rev den, 354 Or 814 (2014).

Defendant appealed judgment for conviction of first degree burglary. Defendant assigned error to denial of motion for a judgment of acquittal for the burglary charge. On appeal, Defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence to show Defendant’s intent to commit the burglary when Defendant made the unlawful entry. Defendant further supported this argument with various Oregon cases that required proof of intent to commit the specific crime once entry occurred. In response, the State argued that those cases were wrongfully decided and that the State was not required to prove the specific crime, and that a finding of intent to commit the crime was sufficient. Under ORS 164.225, to survive a motion for a judgment of acquittal for burglary, the State is required “to plead and prove the specific offense that defendant intended to commit when he unlawfully entered or remained in the house.” State v. Frey, 248 Or App 1 (2012), rev den, 354 Or 814 (2014). The Court held that proof of a specific crime was required for a burglary charge because, although the evidence was sufficient in finding intent of “theft of services”, intent to commit burglary was not the offense the State alleged. Reversed and remanded with instructions.