State v. Haley

Under State v. Macon, 249 Or App 260 (2012), whether a particular space is a “building” under ORS 164.215 depends “on whether the area was self-contained from its parent building, including secure physical access, separate function, and separate occupation."

Defendant appealed convictions for second-degree burglary, identity theft, second-degree theft, and interfering with a peace officer. Defendant assigned error to “the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal . . . on the burglary charge.” On appeal, Defendant argued that an individual’s office is not a “building” for the purposes of a burglary in this case, where it was the office of a university employee in a university building. Under State v. Macon, 249 Or App 260 (2012), whether a particular space is a “building” under ORS 164.215 depends “on whether the area was self-contained from its parent building, including secure physical access, separate function, and separate occupation." The Court reasoned that because the office’s function was inseparable from the function of the rest of the building, it was not a separate, self-contained unit but instead “operated as a component part of” the building as a whole. The fact that the office could lock did not, on its own, make the office a separate unit. Conviction on Count 2 reversed and remanded with instructions to enter a judgment of conviction for second-degree criminal trespass; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.