Daris Deshawn Grant v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
71A05-1605-CR-1174
| Ind. Ct. App. | Feb 24, 2017Background
- On Dec. 14, 2015, police responded to an activated burglar alarm at Takeisha Thomas’s home and heard noises from the basement.
- Officers observed a side-window open ~5–6 inches with the screen removed; front and back doors were locked when they arrived.
- Thomas said she left the house secured that morning, had a protective order against Daris Grant, and never gave him a key or permission to enter.
- Officers found a television and two laptops near the open bedroom window and located Grant hiding in a bathroom; he had gloves, a flashlight, and a blue sack.
- Grant was charged with level 4 burglary (reduced at trial to level 6 residential entry), class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy, and a sentence-enhancement for a prior invasion-of-privacy conviction; he was convicted and sentenced to concurrent two-year terms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for residential entry (breaking and entering) | State: circumstantial evidence (open window with removed screen, moved items, Grant hiding) supports that Grant used force to gain entry | Grant: denied opening window; claimed he used a key and entered through back door | Court: Evidence sufficient; jurors could infer Grant removed the screen/opened the window and thereby "broke and entered" the dwelling |
| Consent as a defense to entry | State: not required to prove lack of consent; burden shifts to defendant to prove reasonable belief of permission | Grant: argued he reasonably believed he had permission (third party gave permission and Thomas had given him a key) | Court: Grant failed to show a reasonable belief of consent; Thomas denied giving a key and entry through a window undercuts any reasonable belief of permission |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell v. State, 31 N.E.3d 495 (Ind. 2015) (standard for sufficiency review: appellate court neither reweighs evidence nor judges credibility)
- Young v. State, 846 N.E.2d 1060 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (breaking can be established by evidence of slightest force)
- Utley v. State, 589 N.E.2d 232 (Ind. 1992) (breaking may be proved entirely by circumstantial evidence)
- Hinton v. State, 52 N.E.3d 1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (credibility and weight of evidence are for the jury)
- Townsend v. State, 33 N.E.3d 367 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (lack of consent is a defensive matter for the defendant to prove)
- Holman v. State, 816 N.E.2d 78 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (once defendant raises consent, the State must disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt)