Douglas M. Curtis v. State of Indiana
2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 304
Ind. Ct. App.2016Background
- Douglas Curtis lived with his father in an age-restricted apartment complex (Nora Commons) under a 2010 "Live-In Attendant" agreement that had not been renewed or attached to the current lease.
- Property manager Cathy Neff discovered Curtis had resold library books and hand-delivered a written No Trespass Notice to Curtis on June 24, 2015.
- When delivering the notice, Neff told Curtis "I will give you 48 hours" to remove belongings or make arrangements with his father.
- Shortly after the notice, residents reported Curtis was removing electronic equipment from the community room; Neff contacted police and Curtis was arrested about twenty minutes after the notice was given.
- Curtis was charged and convicted at a bench trial of Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass for remaining on the premises after being denied entry; he appealed arguing insufficient evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was sufficient evidence that Curtis knowingly trespassed after being denied entry | Neff had effectively denied entry and requested Curtis leave immediately; Curtis remained and thus committed trespass | Neff expressly gave Curtis 48 hours to remove property, so he reasonably believed he could remain or re-enter during that period and lacked the mens rea for trespass | Reversed: insufficient evidence. The 48-hour grace period meant Curtis had a reasonable belief he could stay/re-enter and the State did not prove he knowingly refused to leave |
Key Cases Cited
- Suggs v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1190 (Ind. 2016) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Lemon v. State, 868 N.E.2d 1190 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (communication of denial or request to leave implies a reasonable period to comply)
- Woods v. State, 703 N.E.2d 1115 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (trespass requires willful conduct; other charges might fit disruptive conduct)
- Olsen v. State, 663 N.E.2d 1194 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (if defendant has reasonable belief of right to be present, no criminal trespass)
- Myers v. State, 130 N.E. 116 (Ind. 1921) (discussing trespass purpose to punish willful or baseless intrusions)