State v. Payton

The Oregon Supreme Court decided in State v. Henderson that “because the defendant developed the intent to commit an additional crime—and did commit an additional crime—while unlawfully present in the house” the defendant was guilty of first-degree burglary. 366 Or 14, 455 P3d 503, (2019).

Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his motion for acquittal on the charge of first-degree burglary. Defendant argued that the state failed to provide sufficient evidence in order to show that he formed the requisite intent to commit assault while he had no privilege to be in the house in which the crimes were committed. The State argued that there was sufficient evidence and Defendant did form the necessary intent to assault the victim while unlawfully in the house. The Oregon Supreme Court decided in State v. Henderson that “because the defendant developed the intent to commit an additional crime—and did commit an additional crime—while unlawfully present in the house” the defendant was guilty of first-degree burglary. 366 Or 14, 455 P3d 503, (2019). The Court held that the trial court was correct in denying Defendant’s motion because Defendant ultimately did commit an additional crime while unlawfully inside the house. Affirmed.