State v. Hopkins

The circumstances of a case will support the inference that when a victim reacts against a defendant, the victim impliedly revokes the defendant’s permission to remain on the premises. State v. Felt, 108 Or. App. 730, 733 (1991).

Defendant appealed a conviction for two counts of first-degree burglary and one count of attempted aggravated murder. Defendant assigned error on the trial court’s denial for her motion for judgment of acquittal. On appeal, Defendant argued that the State failed to prove that Defendant unlawfully remained at the victim’s home during the crime because committing a crime in the victim’s home didn’t transform a lawful presence into an unlawful presence. In response, the State argued that the victim implicitly revoked the Defendant’s license to remain in the house after Defendant’s attempted murder. The circumstances of a case will support the inference that when a victim reacts against a defendant, the victim impliedly revokes the defendant’s permission to remain on the premises. State v. Felt, 108 Or. App. 730, 733 (1991). The Court found that the Defendant unlawfully remained at the victim’s apartment, and during the unlawful presence had the intent to commit the additional crimes. Thus, the Court held that the evidence was legally sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt for a rational trier of fact. Affirmed.