A Portland, Oregon, jury has rejected a $10 million lawsuit brought by a burglar who was shot three times by the owner of the business he broke into, ending a case that drew attention because the admitted intruder was seeking millions from the man whose property he entered.
The incident happened in March 2023 at Touchstone Granite & Marble, a countertop fabrication business owned by James Grant. Kenneth Voyles broke into the property and later said he had been looking for food and possibly items to steal. What he apparently did not expect was that Grant, who was living in a back room of the business at the time, would be there.
Grant testified that he was staying at the shop to save money. When he encountered Voyles inside the building, the confrontation quickly escalated. According to Grant, he first threw a cup containing urine into Voyles’ face. He then retrieved a firearm.
Grant told the jury that Voyles appeared agitated and that he feared the intruder was preparing to attack him. He said he repeatedly ordered Voyles to get on the ground before firing.
“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.”
Grant also told jurors that using deadly force was not what he wanted.
“I didn’t want to do deadly force,” he said.
Police and prosecutors did not charge Grant over the shooting. Voyles, meanwhile, later pleaded guilty to burglary of a dwelling. He was sentenced to five years in Portland’s drug court system and also served about a year in prison on unrelated charges.
Despite his burglary conviction, Voyles later filed a civil lawsuit against Grant seeking $10 million in damages for the injuries he suffered during the break-in.
That claim went before a jury in a seven-day trial. Both men testified, and jurors were asked to consider whether Grant should be held financially responsible for the shooting despite the fact that Voyles had unlawfully entered the property.
After only a few hours of deliberation, the jury rejected Voyles’ claim and awarded him nothing.
The jurors concluded that Voyles’ own decision to break into the business was a substantial factor in causing the injuries he later sued over. That finding effectively ended his attempt to hold Grant financially liable for the consequences of the confrontation.
Grant, now 70, said after the verdict that he and the people around him had struggled to understand how the case had made it to trial in the first place.
“Everybody I know, and I’m not just talking about 10 or 20 people, nobody could believe we even got this far,” Grant said. “The laws are bad. It’s just not fair.”
The case highlights the difference between criminal and civil proceedings. Prosecutors declined to charge Grant, but that did not automatically prevent Voyles from attempting to sue him. Civil lawsuits operate under different standards, which can allow disputes to proceed even when no criminal charges are filed.
Still, the jury’s decision was decisive.
Voyles entered the building illegally. He admitted that theft was at least part of his purpose for being there. He was later convicted of burglary.
When the confrontation turned violent, the jury determined that his own actions played a central role in creating the circumstances that led to his injuries. For Grant, the verdict means he will not be forced to pay millions of dollars to the man who broke into his business.
