State v. Spaise

442 P.2d 611, 250 Or. 354, 1968 Ore. LEXIS 553
Oregon Supreme Court·Decided June 19, 1968·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from a judgment sentencing him to imprisonment for burglary in a dwelling. He complains that the state failed to negative consent [355] 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 So2d 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

State v. Spaise, 442 P.2d 611, 250 Or. 354, 1968 Ore. LEXIS 553 (Or. 1968).

442 P.2d 611 (State v. Spaise) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Bone
201 N.W.2d 80 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1972)
White v. People
472 P.2d 674 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1970)