State v. Henderson

To establish that person has committed burglary, the state must prove that the defendant committed a trespass with the “intent to commit a particular crime in the building that he unlawfully entered.” State v. Chatelain, 347 Or 27, 283 (2009)

Defendant appealed the trial court’s decision to deny his motion for judgment of acquittal on the burglary charge. Defendant made an unpreserved argument as well, however the court house to reject without discussion. Defendant assigned error to the State’s failure to prove that he had the intention to commit criminal mischief when he entered the victim’s home. On appeal, Defendant argued that the record does not include evidence sufficient to support the third element of first-degree burglary: the intent to commit a crime within the dwelling in question. In response, the State argued that the evidence adequately supported a finding that the Defendant formed the intent to commit the crime of criminal mischief before entering the house. To establish that person has committed burglary, the state must prove that the defendant committed a trespass with the “intent to commit a particular crime in the building that he unlawfully entered.” State v. Chatelain, 347 Or 27, 283 (2009). The Appellate Court held that there was not enough evidence to support an inference that the defendant had already formed the specific intent to damage the victim’s property by the time he got inside the house. Reversed and remanded.