Joseph M. Johnson, III v. State of Indiana
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 498
Ind. Ct. App.2015Background
- Johnson and Lee had a past affair; in early 2014 they briefly resumed contact but Lee later told Johnson she did not want further contact.
- On April 6, 2014 Johnson came to Lee’s apartment, stood in the doorway after she refused entry, and refused to leave despite being told to go multiple times; he left only when she began dialing 911; police later spoke with him and asked him to stop contacting her.
- On April 9 Johnson left a note and later returned to the building, climbed to Lee’s floor, said her name, and was photographed by Lee before leaving; police again spoke to him that day after Lee found the note.
- Johnson was charged with two counts of criminal trespass (April 6 and April 9 incidents) and a firearms-form false-statement charge (dismissed pretrial); convicted on Count I (April 6) and acquitted on Count II.
- The court found Lee credible that Johnson stood in the apartment doorway/threshold such that she could not close the door and that she had the authority to order him off the immediate area adjacent to her apartment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Johnson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether I.C. § 35-43-2-2 is unconstitutionally vague as applied | Statute applies to leasehold/areas immediately outside a tenant’s door; a person of ordinary intelligence would understand prohibited conduct | Statute vague because common areas are not clearly within tenant’s possessory area; Johnson remained in common area and lacked notice he could be ordered off | Statute not unconstitutionally vague as applied; tenant has possessory interest in doorway/threshold/adjacent area and statute gave fair notice |
| Whether trial court erred rejecting mistake-of-fact defense | The State argued evidence showed Johnson entered threshold area and Lee’s testimony was credible; mistake was not reasonable | Johnson says he reasonably believed he was in a common area and had a right to be there, negating culpability | Rejection affirmed: court credited Lee that Johnson stood in threshold; belief was not reasonable under the facts |
| Sufficiency of the evidence to support conviction | Evidence and inferences (Lee’s testimony, her phone photo, multiple demands to leave) supported conviction | Johnson argues he never blocked the door/entered leasehold and could have been shut out at any time | Evidence sufficient: appellate court defers to trial court credibility findings and affirms conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. State, 868 N.E.2d 464 (Ind. 2007) (vagueness/Due Process standards for criminal statutes)
- Walls v. State, 993 N.E.2d 262 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (tenants have possessory interest in door/threshold and adjacent area; can order person to leave)
- Chavers v. State, 991 N.E.2d 148 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (elements and burden for mistake-of-fact defense)
- Thang v. State, 10 N.E.3d 1256 (Ind. 2014) (standard for sufficiency review; defer to trial court credibility findings)