State v. Haley

Under ORS 164.205(1), a “separate unit” is determined by its structure, occupancy, function, layout, and appearance within a building.

The State appealed the appellate court’s reversal of the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal. The State assigned error to the court's holding that an administrator’s office within a university building was not considered a “separate unit” under ORS 164.205(1). The State argued that the office was not “isolable and structurally distinct” from the building and therefore was not a “separate unit” under that statute. Defendant argued that a “separate unit” must have a separate ownership interest from the building it occupies. Under ORS 164.205(1), a “separate unit” is determined by its structure, occupancy, function, layout, and appearance within a building. The Court determined that because the office was used by only one person, it was designed as a self-contained workspace, and it was visually separate from other areas, it was therefore “separate” from the building under the statute. The Court reasoned that a reasonable trier of fact would also be able to determine that the office was a “unit” of Waldschmidt Hall because the room had a clearly defined separate existence from other areas, the Hall was organized into self-contained workspaces, and Room 307 was one of these workspaces. Accordingly, the Court held that the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal on the second-degree burglary charge. REVERSED.