Adam Jaramillo Ortberg v. United States, 81 A.3d 303

Ortberg challenged sufficiency of evidence for unlawful entry under DC code § 22-3302(a)(1).
Entered Studio One, a private event space inside the W Hotel, during a fundraising event.
Entered via an exit/service door, bypassing a registration desk; event identified by a sign.
Held up a protest sign, distributed flyers, and yelled messages; was asked to leave and complied.
Defendant argued he had a bona fide belief in right to enter; government argued unlawful entry regardless of belief.
Probation-extension issues were moot because probation expired and no revocation occurred.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mental state required for unlawful entry	Ortberg: defendant needed to know he was prohibited	Ortberg: may have bona fide belief he could enter	No strict knowledge required; knowledge entry was unwanted suffices
Sufficiency of evidence on being unwanted	Ortberg entered against the will of the occupant	Ortberg disputing knowledge of being unwanted	Sufficient evidence that entry was against the will and he knew or should have known

Leiss v. United States, 364 A.2d 803 (D.C. 1976) (definition of unlawful entry: without lawful authority and against the will)
Artisst v. United States, 554 A.2d 327 (D.C. 1989) (only general intent to be on premises contrary to will required for entry element)
Culp v. United States, 486 A.2d 1174 (D.C. 1985) (general intent to enter; will element satisfied by express/implied will)
Smith v. United States, 281 A.2d 439 (D.C. 1971) (bona fide belief defense requires a reasonable basis)
Darab v. United States, 623 A.2d 127 (D.C. 1993) (bona fide belief must be disproven beyond reasonable doubt when raised)
Gaetano v. United States, 406 A.2d 1291 (D.C. 1979) (bona fide belief requires justification or reasonable basis)
McGloin v. United States, 232 A.2d 90 (D.C. 1967) (no entry lawful without indication of permission; advance warnings not required)