|CALENDAR STATUS: Active|
|State of Oregon v. Dustin Lee Henderson|
|Supreme Court Case 1|
|Rolf Moan on behalf of State of Oregon |
Stephanie Hortsch on behalf of Dustin Lee Henderson
Statement of Issues:
(1) Under ORS 164.215(1), which provides that a person who "enters or remains unlawfully in a building with intent to commit a crime therein" is guilty of burglary, does a person commit the crime of burglary if the person enters unlawfully without that intent but, while inside, forms that intent and remains for the purpose of committing a crime?
(2) Assuming that the state must prove that the person has a criminal intent at the moment the unlawful trespass begins, can a rational trier of fact infer from evidence that a person who already was angry at the resident broke down a door and damaged property inside the premises that the person had formed the "intent to commit a crime therein" at the start of the criminal trespass?
(Defendant's contingent request for review):
(3) If the state presents evidence that would support multiple distinct factual occurrences of the same crime, does the trial court plainly err in failing to instruct the jury that it must concur on which occurrence constituted the crime?
These summaries of cases are prepared for the benefit of members of the media to assist them in reporting the court's activities to the public. Parties and practitioners should not rely on the summaries, or the statement of issues to be decided in the summaries, as indicating the questions that the Supreme Court will consider. Regarding the questions that the Supreme Court may consider, see Oregon Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.20.
Justice(s) NOT Participating: