State v. Tayborne

To establish that a defendant is not licensed or privileged to enter premises not open to the public when the defendant has been permitted or invited to enter, the state must prove two elements: (1) The person extending the permission or invitation lacked actual authority to do so, and (2) the defendant knew or believed that the person lacked such authority. State v. Hartfield, 290 Or 583, 595, 624 P2d 588 (1981).

[E]ntering a building to commit a crime is not burglary if the person has permission to be in the building. State v. McLaughlin, 317 Or App 596, 607, 505 P3d 1088 (2022).

Defendant was convicted of first degree Burglary (Count 1), ORS 164.225, after he entered a motel room and robbed and assaulted the victim.  On appeal, Defendant argued the court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal (MJOA) because the State failed to present sufficient evidence to show Defendant entered the premises with knowledge that the victim's friend who invited him to the room lacked actual authority and Defendant knew or believed that the friend lacked authority. To establish that a defendant is not licensed or privileged to enter premises not open to the public when the defendant has been permitted or invited to enter, the state must prove two elements: (1) The person extending the permission or invitation lacked actual authority to do so, and (2) the defendant knew or believed that the person lacked such authority. State v. Hartfield, 290 Or 583, 595, 624 P2d 588 (1981). [E]ntering a building to commit a crime is not burglary if the person has permission to be in the building. State v. McLaughlin, 317 Or App 596, 607, 505 P3d 1088 (2022). The Court found the evidence supported Defendant's intention to commit crimes in the room but was insufficient to show Defendant knew or believed victim's friend who invited him to the room lacked actual authority to do so.  Thus, the Court held it was error to deny Defendant's MJOA.  Reversed on Count 1, otherwise affirmed.