David Denver Sasser v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
79A05-1705-CR-1020
| Ind. Ct. App. | Oct 31, 2017Background
- In Oct 2015 Dr. Angelica Koppalis hired 62-year-old Davis D. Sasser to do yard work and paid him in cash.
- On one visit Sasser followed Koppalis into her house after she handed him a sandwich outside, grabbed her, and told her he had showered in a bathroom adjacent to her bedroom; she told him to leave.
- A later day Koppalis returned from work to find Sasser sitting in her living room without permission; he again grabbed her and asked if it felt good to hug; she told him to leave and contacted police.
- Sasser was charged with Level 6 felony residential entry (I.C. § 35-43-2-1.5) and later pleaded guilty to a separate misdemeanor sex-offender ID offense (not appealed).
- At bench trial Sasser testified he had been invited to stay at Koppalis’s house, had access to the refrigerator, and slept in her shed; the trial court found Koppalis credible, rejected Sasser’s consent defense, and convicted him of residential entry.
- On appeal Sasser’s sole argument was that there was insufficient evidence because he had consent to be in the home; the Court of Appeals reviewed the sufficiency claim and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to support Level 6 residential entry conviction where defendant claimed consent to enter | State: evidence shows Sasser knowingly/ intentionally entered dwelling without credible proof of consent | Sasser: he had permission/invitation to be in house and access to provisions; belief in consent | Court: affirmed — evidence sufficient; consent defense not shown to be reasonable and trial court crediting victim bars reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 2007) (standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence; appellate court must view evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
- Holman v. State, 816 N.E.2d 78 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (defendant bears burden to plead and prove consent as defense; once raised, State must disprove beyond a reasonable doubt)
- McKinney v. State, 653 N.E.2d 115 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (defendant’s belief in permission must be reasonable to establish consent defense)