State v. Sjogren

313 Or.App. 364

494 P.3d 1040

STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.John Alan SJOGREN, aka John A. Sjogren, Defendant-Appellant.

A172926

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Argued and submitted June 2, 2021.

July 14, 2021

Stacy M. Du Clos, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. Also on the brief was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Office of Public Defense Services.

Derek Olson, Certified Law Student, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Robert M. Wilsey, Assistant Attorney General.

Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and James, Judge, and Kamins, Judge.

KAMINS, J.

Defendant was convicted of second-degree burglary, ORS 164.215, for stealing garbage from a covered garbage pit. At trial, he moved for a judgment of acquittal arguing that he could not be convicted of burglary because he did not enter a "building," as required by the statute. On appeal, he assigns error to the trial court's denial of that motion, as well as the receipt of a nonunanimous jury verdict. We agree on both counts and therefore reverse.

In reviewing a trial court's denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal, we consider whether any rational trier of fact, drawing all reasonable inferences in the state's favor, could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Mead , 310 Or. App. 57, 58, 484 P.3d 366 (2021).

Defendant was seen by surveillance cameras taking garbage from the garbage pit in the center of the Coos County Solid Waste Facility. The pit is 10-15 feet deep with concrete walls supporting the below-ground portion. Above ground, there are no walls. There are several pillars that support a sheet metal roof covering the contents in the pit. Other than these support pillars, the area between the roof and the ground is exposed.

?

At the close of the state's case, defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that the state failed to prove that the pit was a "building" as required by the burglary statute because it was "basically a roof on stilts." The trial court denied the motion, concluding that the pit qualified as a "building," because the pit had walls below ground, a roof, and was used for business purposes.

This case comes down to whether a garbage pit qualifies as a "building" for purposes of the burglary statute. Second-degree burglary requires that a person "enter[ ] or remain[ ] unlawfully in a building with intent to commit a crime therein." ORS 164.215(1). ORS 164.205(1), in turn, defines "building" in relevant part as: " ‘Building,’ in addition to its ordinary meaning, includes any booth, vehicle, boat, aircraft or other structure adapted for overnight accommodation of persons or for carrying on business therein." Accordingly, to be a building, a structure must either fall within the "ordinary meaning" or qualify as one of the "other structure[s]" that have been adapted for carrying on business or overnight accommodation.

The garbage pit does not fall within the "ordinary meaning" of the word building. Critically for this case, the ordinary meaning of "building" requires that the structure be "more or less completely enclosed by walls." State v. Taylor , 271 Or. App. 292, 298, 350 P.3d 525 (2015) (citing Webster's Third New Int'l. Dictionary 292 (unabridged ed. 1971)); see also State v. Barker/Phelps , 86 Or. App. 394, 397, 739 P.2d 1045 (1987) (ordinary meaning of "building" is "any roofed and walled structure constructed for permanent use") (citing Webster's Third New Int'l. Dictionary 292 (unabridged ed. 1971)). That a building be "more or less completely enclosed by walls" is consistent with the statutory purpose of the burglary statutes—protection against invasion of premises, which is likely to terrorize occupants. See Barker/Phelps , 86 Or. App. at 397 n. 1, 739 P.2d 1045 (explaining purpose of the burglary statutes).¹

The garbage pit lacks walls above the ground. Although the sides of the pit below ground level have been reinforced with concrete walls, from the ground up, the pit has no walls. No rational trier of fact could conclude that that open-air structure is more or less completely enclosed by walls. It is difficult to "enter" an open-air structure, even one with a substantial below ground component, let alone terrorize its "occupants."

Having determined that the garbage pit does not meet the ordinary definition of the word "building," we next must consider whether it qualifies under the expanded definition. Under that definition, a "building" "includes any booth, vehicle, boat, aircraft or other structure adapted for overnight accommodation of persons or for carrying on business therein." ORS 164.205(1). As we have recognized, the Commentary ties this definition to the statutory purpose as well: "the purpose of [the] expansive definition of building is ‘to include those structures and vehicles which typically contain human beings for extended periods of time, in accordance with the original and basic rationale of the crime: protection against invasion of premises likely to terrorize occupants.’ " State v. Webb , 262 Or. App. 1, 5, 324 P.3d 522 (2014) (quoting State v. Scott , 38 Or. App. 465, 467, 590 P.2d 743 (1979) (citing Commentary to Criminal Law Revision Commission Proposed Oregon Criminal Code, Final Draft and Report § 135, 143 (July 1970))).

The garbage pit is not a "building" under the statute's expanded definition for several reasons. The most obvious is the one we have already mentioned: It is not, in any meaningful way, enclosed. Nothing about the expanded definition suggests an elimination of the assumption that a "building"—even if expanded to include vehicles, booths, aircrafts, and boats—is mostly enclosed, consistent with the statutory purpose to encompass structures that may have "occupants" who may be terrorized. Nor does our case law support jettisoning this premise of enclosure. See, e.g. , Taylor , 271 Or. App. at 293, 350 P.3d 525 (concluding that a "breezeway" was a "building" but emphasizing that the breezeway at issue was "mostly enclosed," rather than the sort of "roofed open-air passage" that the term ordinarily refers to). The state appears to acknowledge that the expanded definition is limited to structures that are mostly enclosed, arguing only that the pit is, in fact, "mostly enclosed."

Moreover, the pit has not been "adapted" from its ordinary use for overnight accommodation of persons or for carrying on business therein. The "meaning of ‘adapt’ is ‘to make suitable (for a new or different use or situation) by means of changes or modifications.’ " State v. Nollen , 196 Or. App. 141, 144, 100 P.3d 788 (2004) (quoting Webster's Third New Int'l. Dictionary 23 (unabridged ed. 1993)). The critical component of this definition is that the structure is put to a new or different use. See State v. Lambert , 263 Or. App. 683, 705, 328 P.3d 824, modified on recons. , 265 Or. App. 742, 338 P.3d 160 (2014) (recognizing that the decisive question is not whether extensive physical modifications were made to the structure but whether it is put to a new use); see also Nollen , 196 Or. App. at 144-45, 100 P.3d 788 (modifications to trailer including detaching it from the tractor, placing stairs next to it, and placing permanent signs advertising the trailer as a donation collection station "adapted" the trailer from its ordinary use as a transportation vehicle); Scott , 38 Or. App. at 467-68, ...