united-states theft oregon
What happens if someone who intends to steal a car decides to rescue a child after breaking in?
<p>This is similar to <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/81811/is-it-legal-to-break-into-a-locked-car-to-get-a-child-out-in-hot-weather">my question about breaking into a car in order to rescue a child in hot weather</a>. The events are basically the same, but the intent of the person breaking in is different.</p>
<p>John sees a car in a parking lot and wants to steal it. He checks every door on the vehicle, and they are all locked. (He did this because breaking into a car decreases its value, not because he was trying to follow any laws.) He then breaks into the car with the intent of stealing it. He uses the minimum amount of force necessary to enter, but again, this is to preserve the car's value, not to comply with the law. After breaking in, however, he sees that the driver had left a child in the car. The weather is hot, and being left in the car would be dangerous for the child. John gets the child out, calls 911, and does not steal the car. He &quot;Remains with the child or animal in a safe location, in reasonable proximity to the motor vehicle, until law enforcement, emergency services or the owner or operator of the motor vehicle arrives.&quot; Has he committed a crime?</p>

<h2>Yes</h2>
<p>However, unless he confesses to his intent he’s not going to be caught.</p>

<h2>Yes</h2>
<p>Under common law, even the <a href="https://lawshelf.com/shortvideoscontentview/theft-crimes-a-survey-under-the-common-law-and-modern-codes" rel="noreferrer">slightest movement</a> of property with the intent (mens rea) to steal it completes the crime of larceny. There is no requirement that the thief &quot;escape&quot; or &quot;get away&quot; with the property and whether they did in fact get away is immaterial to guilt. The swaying of the car on its suspension during the break-in and/or the act of opening a door probably qualify as moving the car, but even if not, the offender would be guilty of the inchoate offense of attempted larceny, since they acted with specific intent to steal the car but were unsuccessful in moving it.</p>
<p>Dale M is correct on the offender confessing. This would be one of those cases where that the offender's intent would be a question of fact for the jury to evaluate based on the evidence presented. If the defendant has a good lawyer and argues their case well, they might well be able to convince the jury that there is a reasonable possibility that the defendant truly lacked the mens rea to steal and only ever intended to rescue the child. This would not affect his underlying guilt but would facilitate an acquittal through &quot;reasonable doubt&quot;.</p>

<p>A lot of criminals do this if they find evidence of a greater crime going on.  Some might be fully willing to take the time for their crimes but not for the one they could have accidently put evidence linking back to them to the worse crime onto the case.  Sure they intended to rob the owner of the house... but they didn't want to murder him.  That was someone else.</p>
<p>This is why the scene in Home Alone where Kevin scares Marv with the &quot;Angels with Dirty Souls&quot; clip ultimately backfired.  Harry, upon realizing Marv heard what he thought was a murder, rationalizes that since they've been in other houses on the block to rob them, and they've been casing Kevin's house in particular, they might be likely suspects for a murder they didn't commit and the police might show some leniency if they had a name or description of the murderer.  Ultimately, Harry's decision to watch for who comes out of Kevin's house exposes Kevin's situation to the two robbers and they come dangerously close to actually murdering him (why the neighbor didn't explain this to the cops is troubling).</p>
<p>The fact is, in the U.S., prosecutors do have a hierarchy of crimes and burglars are less of a priority than murders.  In many states, murder can get you the death penalty, so a bunch of robbers really want to avoid that.  And in the United States, 90% of all criminal cases end in a plea deal of sorts, rather than court.  And most career criminals realize this and will jump on the fact that they did not do the worst crime to get some kind of leancy (and occasionally off scotch free, if the prosecutor doesn't want to test the jury's sympathies with &quot;Wrong For the Right Reasons&quot;).  It also helps that in the United States, Self-Defense is a good affirmative defense for any crimes and doesn't just include defense of self, but defense of others as well.</p>
<p>Edit:  After all, there are numerous cases where a car jacker takes a car unaware of the kid being in it at all, and get hit with kidnapping charges for this.  At least in this hypothetical situation, the bad guy did the right thing and didn't drive away with the kid and the car all together (a worse situation for everyone involved.).</p>

<p>I find it unlikely that a prosecutor would go after such an individual (it would be bad PR to be seen as persecuting a 'hero'), but one might attempt to prove intent if the individual, for example, was on camera checking out other cars in the parking lot, looking in their windows, and attempting to open their doors, as well.</p>

<h2>No</h2>
<p>The law does not read minds.  To say &quot;yes&quot; to this question would impute the law with a supernatural ability to do that.</p>
<p><em>Mens rea</em> talks about the content of ones mind, but it only practically applies to what can be shown by evidence.</p>
<p>Since there is no evidence that allows outsiders to distinguish &quot;intended car theft&quot; from &quot;intended baby rescue&quot;, the crime does not exist.</p>
<p>Or if it ever existed, it was extinguished when the thief found the baby and decided to do the right thing under cover of the Good Samaritan laws.</p>

<h2>He Unlawfully Entered a Motor Vehicle (a Class A Misdemeanor)</h2>
<p>Suppose that someone else recorded him saying, “I’m going to go steal that car over there. Oh, yeah, this is my big payday. Wait! What’s that? Somebody left a <em>baby</em> in here? It’s got to be a hundred ten inside this car! You can’t even see ’em in these new backwards baby seats. Call 9-1-1, I’ll get it out! Where’s the coolest place we can get to?”</p>
<p>That definitely proves he met the elements of the crime of <a href="https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_164.272" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Unlawful Entry into a Motor Vechicle (ORS 164.272).</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>A person commits the crime of unlawful entry into a motor vehicle if the person enters a motor vehicle, or any part of a motor vehicle, with the intent to commit a crime.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>He Did not Commit Theft</h2>
<p>Other answers state the <a href="https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_164.015" rel="nofollow noreferrer">definition of theft in Oregon (ORS 164.015)</a> incorrectly.  In order to commit theft, he would need to have</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Take[n], appropriate[d], obtain[ed] or withhold[ed] such property from an owner thereof;</p>
</blockquote>
<p>or one of several other things that don’t come close to applying here, such as extortion.  Common-law definitions of theft do not pertain to the state of Oregon.</p>
<h2>He Did not Commit Robbery</h2>
<p>He would only have violated <a href="https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_164.395" rel="nofollow noreferrer">ORS 164</a>, Oregon’s robbery or carjacking statute, if he had used or threatened to use force on another person.</p>
<h2>He Probably Did not Commit Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle</h2>
<p>The Oregon Court of Appeals suggested, in <em>Oregon v. Phillips</em>, 315 Or App 178 (2021), based on the legislative history of <a href="https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_164.135" rel="nofollow noreferrer">ORS 164.135 (Unauthorized Use of a vehicle)</a>, that to commit this crime, “a person would need to ‘exercise control,’ or otherwise start or somehow ‘use’ the vehicle.” (This was not a holding in the case, however.)</p>
<h2>He Might not be Prosecuted</h2>
<p>In the original scenario, his intent when he entered the car would be much more difficult to prove.  It also seems extremely unlikely that the owner of the car would want to press any charges against the man who saved their baby’s life.  (Or want everybody to find out that they nearly killed their own child.)</p>
<p>Even if the county prosecutor suspects that John was up to no good, they might not want to bring a case where there was no harm done (other than, possibly, damage to the lock), the victim doesn’t want publicity, the case comes down to a subjective judgment of intent, and the defendant is so sympathetic.</p>
