Oregon Jury Rejects Burglar’s $10 Million Suit Against Business Owner Who Shot Him in the Act

A Portland, Oregon, jury rejected a convicted burglar’s demand for $10 million from a man who shot him when he broke into the man’s business.

On Tuesday, according to OregonLive,

the jury sided 10-2 with business owner James Grant, refusing to rule that Grant opening fire on burglar Kenneth Voyles was unjustified. The jury also found that Voyles’ decision to pry a board off the building, cut metal bars and wiggle through an old doggie door to get inside was a “substantial factor” that contributed to his wounds.

Voyles broke into Grant’s countertop-fabrication business, Touchstone Granite & Marble, around 5:30 a.m. on March 6, 2023. The then-43-year-old Voyles, who was homeless at the time, claimed he was merely seeking food and warmth, though he admitted he was also hoping to find something to steal.

Unfortunately for Voyles, Grant, who was living in a back room of the business, had just awakened. Naked but for a towel slung over his shoulder, the then-70-year-old wandered into the showroom, expecting to find nothing but stone. Instead, he found a stoned burglar trying to make off with one of his drills. (Grant’s attorney told the jury Voyles had methamphetamine in his system at the time)

Shots in the Dark

Surveillance video showed that Grant immediately doused Voyles with a cup of urine he was carrying and threw heavy tiles at him. Voyles ran toward the doggie door, profusely apologizing. Those apologies, insincere as they probably were, fell on deaf ears, Grant said, because he wasn’t wearing his hearing aids at the time.

The crucial moments of the confrontation, which took place in the garage, were not caught on camera. “That’s where the [men’s] stories diverge,” noted OregonLive.

Voyles portrayed himself as the not-so-innocent victim of a murderous madman.

After Grant departed for the back room, Voyles testified, Voyles picked up a pair of large bolt cutters to try to cut through a padlock on the garage door to escape, preferring that to trying to wriggle back through the doggie door, where Grant might have grabbed his legs.

Voyles claimed Grant returned with a gun and shot him three times without saying a word. Then, when Voyles turned to look at him, Grant allegedly told him, “You’re going to die.”

Voyles said he didn’t think Grant “was going to let me out alive.”

Nevertheless, Voyles escaped through the doggie door, only to be found later near the road by some construction workers.

To Catch a Thief

Grant, by contrast, testified that he went for his gun to ensure Voyles wouldn’t escape, reported OregonLive:

“I wanted him arrested,” Grant said.

Grant said he started Touchstone Granite & Marble more than 30 years ago. In all that time and amid multiple reports he’d made of break-ins, he said, police had never shown up to investigate.

“They just called me and did a report over the phone,” Grant said.

The morning of the shooting, however, Grant said police arrived right away.

Grant claimed he only shot Voyles when the younger man raised the bolt cutters over his head and moved toward him.

“I said, ‘Get on the ground. Get on the ground. Get on the ground. Get on the ground,” Grant testified. “And he looked very agitated. Looked like he was getting ready to attack me. Then I shot three times.”

Contra Voyles, Grant said he never told the burglar he was going to die and, in fact, “didn’t want to do deadly force.”

Charge Account

Much of the case hinged upon whether Grant’s business could legally be considered his home. Oregon law allows individuals to employ lethal force to defend their residences but not their businesses. Moreover, Grant, who has homes in Nevada and China but lives at Touchstone when in Portland, had been told by the city not to reside there because doing so violated zoning laws.

Still, the fact that prosecutors chose not to charge Grant suggests they accepted that his business was his home and that he was justified in shooting Voyles.

On the other hand, wrote OregonLive, Voyles, “who has multiple convictions for stealing cars and burglarizing businesses,”

pleaded no contest and was convicted of first-degree burglary — of a dwelling, not a business — and menacing, for threatening Grant’s safety. As part of a plea deal, he was sentenced to five years of drug treatment court. He also ended up serving more than a year in prison for an unrelated string of car thefts.

Jurors’ Just Judgment

Voyles’ attorney, David Wallace, claimed the police investigation wasn’t thorough enough and wondered why Grant didn’t simply leave the room if he was afraid of Voyles.

“What this case will be about is use of force,” Wallace said in his opening statement. “Whether or not each of those bullets, each of those shots, was justified.”

Stephanie Schilling, representing Grant, pointed out that Grant did not legally have to wait to be attacked to shoot Voyles. Furthermore, for someone allegedly so intent on killing Voyles, Grant showed remarkable restraint: He still had 13 rounds in his gun when Voyles made his exit.

Voyles, she said, “does not deserve to be rewarded. And James Grant does not deserve to be punished.”

The jury apparently agreed.

“Maybe there’s a chance for Portland after all,” quipped Portland-based radio host Lars Larson. “Most of its elected officials may be dumb as a bag of hammers … but if a jury of average citizens can see common sense, we have hope.”