A man who broke into a Portland granite shop before dawn was shot by the owner and is now suing for $10 million; the civil trial raises questions about self-defense, property rights, and how cities treat long-running break-ins, while jurors hear competing accounts of what happened that morning in March 2023.
A homeless man entered a granite and marble business around 5:30 AM by forcing open gates, prying plywood off a garage door, cutting through metal bars, and squeezing inside. He later told jurors he was homeless, cold and hungry, and admitted he intended to steal tools from the shop. The man, Kenneth Voyles, is asking a Multnomah County jury for $5 million in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages, accusing the owner of battery, assault, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The owner, 70-year-old James Grant, was sleeping in a back room of Touchstone Granite & Marble and says he woke, walked into the showroom, and confronted the intruder. Surveillance footage captured gestures and the initial moments of the encounter, including Grant throwing a cup of urine and tossing tiles as the intruder moved toward the garage area. What happened after the camera view ended is central to the dispute and to the jury’s decision.
Voyles says he grabbed bolt cutters to break a padlock and escape through the garage door when Grant returned with a handgun and opened fire without warning. According to that account, Grant told him he was going to die, and three rounds struck him in the arm and torso, producing a collapsed lung, shattered bones, and the need for vascular surgery. Voyles previously pleaded no contest and was convicted of first-degree burglary and menacing for that morning, receiving five years in drug treatment court and later serving more than a year in prison for a separate crime spree.
Grant gives a different account, testifying he did not have his hearing aids in and could not hear any apologies or explanations, then went for his gun because he wanted Voyles arrested, not killed. He said that when he returned, Voyles had raised the bolt cutters over his head and took a step toward him. “I wanted him arrested,” Grant said. “I didn’t want to do deadly force.” Grant is an Army veteran with a concealed carry permit who told jurors he has fired more than 10,000 rounds at shooting ranges and knows how to use a firearm.
Police did not charge Grant after the shooting, and prosecutors declined to bring criminal charges; Voyles’ earlier plea remains on record. The civil suit, however, uses the same facts to press a different remedy, challenging all three shots and arguing Grant’s actions were excessive. Voyles’ lawyers say Grant’s conduct inflicted severe injury and emotional harm and that the company should be liable for the actions of its owner while he was securing the business.
Oregon law allows deadly force when someone reasonably believes they are about to be attacked, and statutes treat violence differently depending on whether a person is in a dwelling; the law draws a distinction between homes and commercial properties. Voyles’ team argues Grant was not entitled to treat the shop as a dwelling because he was living there in violation of industrial zoning rules and had been warned by the city. That zoning wrinkle is part of the defense’s case, because it undercuts Grant’s claim that he had a home-like right to use deadly force to protect his place of residence.
Grant’s lawyer counters that the owner had suffered decades of break-ins and that police routinely took only phone reports without responding in person, leaving him with limited options. Grant testified he had reported break-ins for thirty years and that the police response was typically a report over the phone, with officers showing up only after this shooting. The defense paints a man suddenly facing a stranger in the dark wielding heavy bolt cutters as reacting to an immediate and escalating threat.
The suit also examines Voyles’ state at the time: Grant’s attorney noted that Voyles had methamphetamine in his system the morning of the incident, and the intruder himself admitted to a history of criminal activity that included a separate string of car thefts. Voyles’ history and the circumstances of the break-in are key facts the defense uses to argue the shooting was a defensive response rather than an unjustified attack.
At trial, jurors will need to weigh surveillance video, physical injuries, testimony about prior break-ins and police response, and competing eyewitness accounts of what happened in the moments when the camera stopped recording. The civil case aims to decide whether the three rounds fired were an unlawful use of force deserving of $10 million in damages, or a defensive reaction by a property owner confronting a violent intruder in his business.
Add comment