A man who broke into a Northeast Portland granite and marble shop before dawn in 2023 and was shot three times by the business owner is now asking a jury to award him $10 million in damages. The civil trial, which began Monday in Multnomah County Circuit Court, hinges on a question Oregon law treats very differently depending on the answer: was the building where the shooting happened a home, or just a business?
Kenneth Voyles was 43 years old when he entered Touchstone Granite & Marble on Northeast Columbia Boulevard at about 5:30 a.m. on March 6, 2023, according to The Oregonian/OregonLive. Voyles, who was homeless at the time, pulled plywood off a garage door and cut through metal bars to get inside, the outlet reports. He is now suing business owner James Grant, who was 70 at the time of the shooting, for $10 million.
Grant lived in a back room of the business, according to the reporting, even though the shop sits in an industrial corridor at 3610 NE Columbia Blvd, per Fablocator. City officials had found Grant in violation of industrial-district zoning rules and told him not to reside there, the same reporting notes. That detail sits at the center of the case, because Oregon law draws a sharp line between defending a dwelling and defending a commercial building.
What Happened Inside the Shop
Once inside, Voyles picked up a DeWalt bag containing a drill, according to the account relayed in court. Grant said he threw a cup of urine in Voyles' face and hurled a heavy tile toward him before ordering him to get on the ground. Grant has said Voyles then raised bolt cutters and moved toward him, prompting Grant to fire three shots to protect himself, striking Voyles in the arm and torso.
Voyles suffered a shattered arm bone and a collapsed lung from the shooting, per the same account. He has said he was trying to escape when Grant opened fire, a version of events that conflicts with Grant's claim that Voyles advanced on him with bolt cutters in hand. Grant, an Army veteran who holds a concealed weapons permit, told authorities he had fired more than 10,000 rounds at firing ranges over the years and left 13 of the gun's 16 rounds unfired that morning.
No Criminal Charges, But a Civil Case Proceeds
Police and prosecutors filed no charges against Grant, and Voyles was separately convicted of first-degree burglary of a dwelling and menacing, receiving a sentence of five years of drug treatment court. He had previously served more than a year in prison for unrelated car thefts. According to Grant's attorney, Voyles had methamphetamine in his system at the time of the confrontation.
Even though prosecutors declined to charge Grant, Oregon law does not grant automatic civil immunity to people who shoot in self-defense, meaning a property owner cleared of criminal wrongdoing can still face a wrongful-injury lawsuit in state court, according to Right To Bear. That gap is why Voyles' case can move forward in front of a Multnomah County jury even without any criminal case against Grant. Oregon voters and lawmakers considered closing that gap in 2014 through Initiative Petition 10, a proposed ballot measure that would have created broad civil immunity for property owners who use force against trespassers, but it never qualified for the ballot, according to research from City Club of Portland.
Dwelling or Business? The Law Splits the Difference
Oregon law allows people to use lethal force to defend their homes from intruders but does not allow lethal force to defend businesses from intruders under the same standard. Under Oregon Revised Statutes Section 161.219, deadly force in self-defense is justified only if a person reasonably believes someone is committing or attempting a felony involving physical force, using unlawful deadly force, or committing a burglary inside a dwelling, according to Oregon statute. A separate statute, ORS 161.225, permits only reasonable non-deadly force to stop trespassing on commercial premises, restricting deadly force there unless it is necessary to prevent arson or a violent felony against a person.
Oregon criminal law defines a dwelling under ORS 164.205 as any building regularly or occasionally occupied by someone lodging there at night, which is the statutory baseline for Castle Doctrine protections, according to the Giffords Law Center. That definition is precisely what Grant's defense leans on: because he slept in the back room, his attorneys argue the business functioned as his home at the time of the shooting, even though city officials had told him not to live there. The gap in penalties tracks the same distinction — first-degree burglary of a dwelling is a Class A felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison, while burglary of a commercial building is a Class C felony.
Attorneys Clash Over Whether Grant Should Have Retreated
Voyles' attorney, David Wallace, has argued that Grant could have retreated to another room with a locked door rather than confronting Voyles directly. But Oregon has no legal duty to retreat before using justified force against an imminent deadly threat. The Oregon Supreme Court established that rule in its 2007 decision in State v. Sandoval, making Oregon a judicial stand-your-ground state.
Grant's attorney, Stephanie Schilling, has countered that Grant had the right to defend himself against Voyles regardless of whether retreat was possible. The jury will ultimately decide the case under a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, requiring agreement from at least nine of the twelve jurors under Article VII, Section 5 of the Oregon Constitution, according to the Oregon State Bar. The trial, which began Monday, is expected to conclude the week of August 17.
