From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Spaise

Oregon Supreme Court
Jun 19, 1968
442 P.2d 611 (Or. 1968)

Opinion

Argued June 11, Affirmed June 19, 1968

Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County.

VIRGIL, LANGTRY, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Richard W. Hill, Portland, argued the cause and filed a brief for appellant.

Billy L. Williamson, Deputy District Attorney, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was George Van Hoomissen, District Attorney, Portland.

Before McALLISTER, Presiding Justice, and O'CONNELL and DENECKE, Justices.


1, 2. Defendant appeals from a judgment sentencing him to imprisonment for burglary in a dwelling. He complains that the state failed to negative consent to the entry by the owners of the dwelling. Want of consent by the owner to the entry may be proved by circumstantial evidence. Johnson v. State, 157 Fla 328, 25 So.2d 801, 802 (1946); State v. Bull, 47 Ida 336, 276 P. 528 (1929); State v. Dixson, 80 Mont. 181, 260 P. 138, 147 (1927); State v. Patchen, 36 Nev. 510, 137 P. 406, 407 (1913). There was ample evidence in this case from which the jury could infer that the entry by defendant was not consented to by the owner of the dwelling.

We find no merit in the appeal and affirm the judgment.


Summaries of

State v. Spaise

Oregon Supreme Court
Jun 19, 1968
442 P.2d 611 (Or. 1968)
Case details for

State v. Spaise

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. JAMES M. SPAISE, Appellant

Court:Oregon Supreme Court

Date published: Jun 19, 1968

Citations

442 P.2d 611 (Or. 1968)
442 P.2d 611

Citing Cases

White v. People

We adopt the majority rule in the United States that want of consent by the owner to enter into his premises…

State v. Bone

Want of consent by the owner or occupant to enter into his premises may be proved by circumstantial evidence.…