Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. JAMES M. SPAISE, Appellant
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1968-06-19
Citations: 250 Or. 354
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. JAMES M. SPAISE, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 250
Pages: 354–355

Head Matter:
Argued June 11,
affirmed June 19, 1968
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. JAMES M. SPAISE, Appellant.
442 P. 2d 611
■ 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 ivas George Van Hoomissen, District Attorney, Portland. : :'

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 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.