Opinion ID: 1194745
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: commonly used for forcible entry or theft

Text: The catch-all phrase in ORS 164.235(2) encompasses articles adapted, designed or commonly used for forcible entries or theft by physical taking. No one has argued that ordinary screwdrivers are designed for committing or facilitating forcible entries or theft. As we noted in Warner, the class of objects designed for those purposes is relatively small. Neither does the state contend that the screwdriver with which the jury found that defendant was armed was adapted in any way to facilitate a forcible entry. Adapted means that an object actually has been altered or modified in some way for the purpose of facilitating a forcible entry or theft. State v. Warner, supra, 298 Or. at 651, 696 P.2d 1052. Neither its actual use nor its capability for use to commit or facilitate a forcible entry or theft is relevant to the issue of adaptation. Id at 650, 696 P.2d 1052. The state contends that an ordinary screwdriver is a commonly used burglar's tool, and relies upon the testimony of two police officers at trial who stated that the use of small pry tools to effect unlawful entries into buildings is very common-place and quite common and that screwdrivers are commonly used and could be used to pry open a locked door from the outside, which is what defendant was alleged to have done. The state asserts that the question whether an article is commonly used as a burglar's tool is one of fact which must be established in each case. The state suggests that this could be established by expert testimony from law enforcement officers, retired burglars, or in some instances by judicial notice pursuant to OEC 201. The state relies upon the fact that several other states have held that screwdrivers are a commonly used burglar's tool for the purposes of similarly worded burglar's tool possession statutes. See, e.g., Burrell v. State, 429 So.2d 636, 639 (Ala Cr App 1982); State v. Crouch, 353 S.W.2d 597, 601 (Mo 1962). Defendant maintains that the phrase commonly used in ORS 164.235(2) is impermissibly vague because no legal standard defining it exists and, therefore, a jury has no consistent standard to apply to the particular article at issue and inconsistent verdicts based upon possession of the same article are inevitable. Because, as discussed below, we conclude that the phrase commonly used in ORS 164.235(2) is impermissibly vague, we do not discuss the evidentiary issues involved in proving what is commonly used.