Jeremiah Walls v. State of Indiana
2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 407
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Early morning: Walls, highly intoxicated, was banging on and trying to enter tenants’ apartment doors in an apartment complex; tenants Zurita, Wainwright, and Litton refused him entry and asked him to leave.
- Walls persisted, placed a foot through a threshold, and banged on doors; tenants shut and locked doors and called police.
- Officer Gary Wagner responded; a physical struggle occurred when Walls resisted, grabbed the officer’s taser, and was eventually handcuffed; both Walls and the officer were injured.
- While being transported, Walls told Officer Trent Wagner (son of Gary Wagner) he and his family would kill Trent and Gary Wagner; Trent relayed these statements to his father.
- Criminal charges: multiple counts including intimidation (two counts acquitted, others convicted), resisting law enforcement, criminal trespass, battery, and disorderly conduct; Walls appealed convictions raising four issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency — Criminal trespass | Walls: tenants lacked authority to ask him to leave common areas; Aberdeen limits possessory interest to landlord | State: tenants had sufficient possessory interest in their apartment doors, thresholds, and immediate access areas to ask Walls to leave | Affirmed: sufficient evidence for trespass because Walls persisted at apartment thresholds and tenants could exclude him from those immediate areas |
| Sufficiency — Intimidation of Officer Gary Wagner | Walls: threats weren’t communicated directly to Gary, so intimidation toward him not proven | State: threats to Gary were communicated via Trent, and statute doesn’t require direct communication; intent to place Gary in fear shown | Affirmed: sufficient evidence of intimidation (communication through Trent) |
| Jury instructions | Walls: jury should have been told whether offenses were felonies or misdemeanors | State: jury’s role is to determine guilt/innocence, not prescribe penalties; instruction as given correctly stated law | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion in instructions |
| Closing argument limits | Walls: should have been allowed to argue offense levels in closing | State: trial court properly limited argument; no prejudice shown | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion and no demonstrated prejudice |
| Constitutionality — Voluntary intoxication statute | Walls: statute burdens right to choose what to drink and criminalizes protected conduct | State: statute targets harmful conduct resulting from voluntary intoxication; it does not ban drinking and is a permissible allocation of criminal responsibility | Affirmed: statute constitutional |
Key Cases Cited
- Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 904 (Ind. 2005) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Aberdeen Apartments v. Cary Campbell Realty Alliance, Inc., 820 N.E.2d 158 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (landlord retain possessory interest in common areas; tenants have license)
- Ajabu v. State, 677 N.E.2d 1035 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (statute does not require threats be made directly to victim; communication can be via third parties or media)
- Sanchez v. State, 749 N.E.2d 509 (Ind. 2001) (voluntary intoxication may satisfy mens rea elements as legislatively prescribed)
- Brown v. State, 799 N.E.2d 1064 (Ind. 2003) (jury’s role is to determine guilt/innocence, not set penalties)
- Glispie v. State, 955 N.E.2d 819 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (evidence required to establish owner/agent denial for trespass)