Milton D. Horton v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
49A05-1606-CR-1445
| Ind. Ct. App. | Feb 28, 2017Background
- On Feb. 3, 2016, Milton D. Horton knocked and rang the doorbell at Keith Carter’s Indianapolis apartment and briefly entered when Carter cracked the door.
- Horton left, returned, and began kicking Carter’s door; a police officer later observed a black scuff consistent with kicking.
- When Carter opened the door a second time, Horton pushed far enough into the apartment that Carter could not close the door and struck Carter in the face.
- Carter repelled Horton with a yardstick until Horton exited and then called police; Horton was found in the hallway and appeared intoxicated and belligerent.
- The State charged Horton with battery resulting in bodily injury (Class A misdemeanor), disorderly conduct (Class B misdemeanor), and residential entry (Level 6 felony); a jury convicted him on all counts and he admitted being an habitual offender.
- Horton appealed, arguing insufficient evidence that he broke and entered (i.e., used force or was denied entry) to sustain the residential entry felony conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to prove residential entry (breaking + entry) | State: evidence showed Horton kicked door (scuff mark), entered past the threshold, and used force to gain entry without consent | Horton: no showing he was denied entry and no evidence he used force to gain entrance | Affirmed — evidence established slightest breach/force and entry without consent |
Key Cases Cited
- Cupello v. State, 27 N.E.3d 1122 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (any breach of the threshold, however slight, satisfies criminal residential entry)
- Davis v. State, 770 N.E.2d 319 (Ind. 2002) (slightest force to gain entry establishes the breaking element)
- Young v. State, 846 N.E.2d 1060 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (opening an unlocked door may be sufficient for breaking)
- McKinney v. State, 653 N.E.2d 115 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (lack of consent is not an element the State must prove; defendant bears burden to prove consent defense)
- West v. State, 22 N.E.3d 872 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (appellate sufficiency review defers to the factfinder on credibility and weight of evidence)