273 NW2D 187 - State v. Blair

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently December 2009

7 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

ZASTROW, Justice

¶1(dissenting).

¶2I respectfully dissent.

¶3I would affirm the decision of Judge Braithwaite and hold that entry into a business place during the time it is open to the public cannot be the basis for a burglary charge. See State v. Taylor, 17 Or.App. 499, 522 P.2d 499; State v. Rogers, 83 N.M. 676, 496 P.2d 169; People v. Carstensen, 161 Colo. 249, 420 P.2d 820; Smith v. State, Alaska, 362 P.2d 1071; People v. Jones. 50 A.D.2d 750, 376 N.Y.S.2d 155.

¶4The interpretation by the majority will make a first degree burglary charge possible for anyone who enters or remains in an occupied business place after sunset and writes any insufficient funds check. There have been many, many bars and saloons burglarized under the majority’s interpretation. In fact, the commission of any crime indoors would appear to be subject to a burglary charge since the burglary statutes refer to “enter[ing] or remaining] in any structure, with intent to commit any crime.”