A Portland, Oregon, burglar who sought $10 million from the business owner who shot him during a 2023 break-in walked away from the civil trial with nothing after jurors concluded his own decision to enter the property substantially contributed to his injuries.
A jury ruled Tuesday in favor of 70-year-old business owner James Grant following a seven-day trial, according to The Oregonian. Jurors deliberated for only a few hours before rejecting Kenneth Voyles’ claim for damages.
The confrontation occurred in March 2023 at Touchstone Granite & Marble, a countertop fabrication business where Grant was living in a back room to save money.
Voyles, now 43, acknowledged that he entered the property looking for food and possibly items to steal.
What followed was an unusual and violent encounter.
Grant initially confronted the intruder and threw a cup containing urine into Voyles’ face. Grant then retrieved a firearm.
During his testimony, Grant described repeatedly ordering Voyles to get onto the ground.
“I said, ‘Get on the ground. Get on the ground. Get on the ground. Get on the ground,’” Grant testified.
According to Grant, Voyles did not comply and instead appeared as though he might attack.
“And he looked very agitated,” Grant testified. “Looked like he was getting ready to attack me. Then I shot three times.”
Grant shot Voyles three times.
“I didn’t want to do deadly force,” Grant told the jury.
The shooting was investigated, but police and prosecutors did not bring criminal charges against Grant. Voyles, meanwhile, later pleaded guilty to burglary of a dwelling stemming from the break-in.
Voyles subsequently turned to civil court, seeking $10 million over the injuries he sustained in the shooting.
That effort ultimately failed.
The jury found that Voyles’ burglary was a “substantial factor” contributing to the injuries for which he was seeking compensation and awarded him zero dollars.
For Grant, the verdict ended a case he said people around him could hardly believe had proceeded as far as a jury trial.
“Everybody I know, and I’m not just talking about 10 or 20 people, nobody could believe we even got this far,” Grant said after the verdict. “The laws are bad. It’s just not fair.”
The case placed two separate questions before authorities and the courts.
The first was whether Grant’s decision to shoot Voyles warranted criminal prosecution. Local authorities declined to charge him.
The second was whether Grant should nevertheless be financially liable to Voyles under civil law. A jury has now answered that question as well, finding for Grant after hearing testimony from both men.
Voyles’ criminal case had already produced consequences of its own. He was sentenced to five years in Portland’s drug-court process and served a year in prison on unrelated charges.
Civil cases can proceed even when prosecutors decline criminal charges because the two systems apply different legal standards and address different questions. That distinction gave Voyles an avenue to bring his multimillion-dollar claim despite Grant never being criminally prosecuted for the shooting.
But getting the case into a courtroom and persuading a jury were two very different things.
After seven days of testimony, jurors needed only a matter of hours to reach their decision.
Voyles broke into a business where its owner was sleeping, was confronted and ultimately shot three times. He then sought $10 million from the man who shot him.
The jury’s final calculation was considerably simpler: $0.
