A Book from the Library of Defense
Namespaces
Variants
Actions

Library Collections

Webinars & Podcasts
Motions
Disclaimer

Oregon Appellate Court - August 28, 2013

From OCDLA Library of Defense
< Blog:Case Reviews
Revision as of 11:32, August 29, 2013 by Abassos@mpdlaw.com (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

by: Abassos • August 28, 2013 • no comments


Burglary Requires Criminal Intent at the Initiation of a Criminal Trespass

Burglary is a criminal trespass with the intent to commit a crime. Thus, where a person unlawfully enters without criminal intent and then later develops criminal intent, there is no burglary. Here, defendant trespassed into an empty home to look around and took a key while he was inside. He was not guilty of burglary because he did not have the intent to steal at the time he entered the home. Note that a burglary can also be committed by remaining unlawfully. In that case, the person must intend to commit a crime at the point where the person's permission to be on the property is revoked. Reversed for entry of judgement on Criminal Trespass II. State v JNS, ___ Or App ___ (2013)

Possession/Mfr of a Destructive Device

A pyrotechnic device is not a destructive device for the purpose of ORS 166.382-4, possession and manufacture of a destructive device. Pyrotechnic devices, also known as fireworks, are explosive substances "prepared for the purpose of providing a visible or audible effect." Here, defendant, a juvenile, filled a tennis ball with gunpowder and, using a pixie stick as a wick, planned to light the tennis ball for the purpose of creating a big flash. If his purpose was not to destroy anything, but only to create a visible effect, he was not guilty of either possession or manufacture of a destructive device. Reversed and remanded for fact finding and determination on the question of whether the tennis ball creation was a pyrotechnic device. State v JNS, ___ Or App ___ (2013)