Bountiful City v. Sisch, 540 P.3d 1164

Sisch purchased shoes at Smith’s, returned an hour later to exchange them, and then lingered in the northeast parking lot area (used for employee parking, cart retrieval, and housing propane canisters) that was open to the public.
The store manager, wearing a Smith’s shirt and name badge, approached Sisch, identified himself as the manager, and asked Sisch to leave; Sisch refused and became loud and aggressive.
A co‑worker called 911; police arrived within minutes. The officer observed Sisch’s agitated behavior, identified the parking lot as owned/operated by Smith’s, briefly handcuffed Sisch, and later heard Sisch acknowledge an employee asked him to leave.
Bountiful City charged Sisch with criminal trespass (plus disorderly conduct and failure to disclose identity); after a bench trial the court convicted Sisch of all counts.
At trial Sisch argued the lot was open to the public and that the City failed to prove Smith’s was the “owner” or that the manager had authority; the trial court found the manager had authority to act for the owner and that Sisch refused to leave.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency: Was there sufficient evidence that Smith’s was the “owner” (or had possessory interest) such that a manager’s request to leave satisfied the trespass statute?	City: Officer testimony that Smith’s owned/operated the lot, manager/co‑worker testimony, and circumstantial evidence supported a possessory interest and manager authority.	Sisch: City failed to prove ownership or a lease/tenancy; manager’s authority to act for the owner was not conclusively shown; lot was public and he was a customer.	Affirmed: Evidence (direct and reasonable inferences from circumstantial facts) was sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt that Smith’s had dominion and manager had authority.
Admissibility / preservation: Could Sisch challenge on appeal the officer’s statement that Smith’s owned the lot?	City: Sisch did not object at trial, so the statement was properly considered by the court.	Sisch: The officer’s ownership statement was unsupported and lacked foundation.	Held: Not preserved; no trial objection was made, so the trial court could consider the statement as evidence.

State v. Jack, 414 P.3d 1063 (bench‑trial evidence recited in light most favorable to trial court)
State v. Ayala, 504 P.3d 755 (review for clear error on sufficiency in bench trials)
State v. Charles, 477 P.3d 492 (bench‑trial sufficiency challenges need not be preserved)
Salt Lake City v. Carrera, 358 P.3d 1067 (distinguishing permissible inferences from speculation)
State v. Prisbrey, 479 P.3d 1126 (inference vs. speculation analysis)
State v. Workman, 852 P.2d 981 (guilt cannot rest on remote or speculative inferences)
Finlayson v. Finlayson, 874 P.2d 843 (judicial notice on appeal is limited)