Michael Ayeh v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
49A05-1706-CR-1312
| Ind. Ct. App. | Dec 6, 2017Background
- Michael Ayeh and ex-wife Vida Odai share three children; children lived in Odai’s house (Odai on the mortgage); Ayeh lived in a shelter.
- Odai allowed Ayeh to stay at her house for two weeks after their 13-year-old daughter’s hospital visit; Odai says the invitation expired the morning of November 1, 2016.
- On November 1 Odai told Ayeh he could not return; Ayeh left for the shelter, then returned to Odai’s home later that day against her expressed refusal to let him stay.
- Odai repeatedly asked Ayeh to leave; when he refused she called police; Officer Bergmann (acting as Odai’s agent) also told Ayeh to leave and Ayeh continued to refuse.
- Ayeh was arrested and charged with two counts of Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass; after a bench trial he was convicted on one count and sentenced to 365 days (one count vacated on double jeopardy grounds).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State proved criminal trespass beyond a reasonable doubt | State: Ayeh lacked a contractual interest and knowingly refused to leave after being asked | Ayeh: He reasonably believed he retained a contractual interest because no specific time was stated and thus could stay the entire day | Court: Affirmed — evidence sufficient to prove trespass (contractual interest terminated; refusals to leave established) |
Key Cases Cited
- Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 2007) (standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence)
- Love v. State, 73 N.E.3d 693 (Ind. 2017) (affirming requirement that appellate court not reweigh evidence on sufficiency review)
- Woods v. State, 703 N.E.2d 1115 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (lack of contractual interest is an element of criminal trespass)
- Taylor v. State, 836 N.E.2d 1024 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (definition of contractual interest as a right arising from an agreement creating an obligation)