Nijae Odumn v. United States, 227 A.3d 1099

Appellant Nijae Odumn had previously been verbally barred from Washington View Apartments by security on Feb. 11 and reminded of that bar on Mar. 2, 2017.
On Dec. 9, 2017 Odumn helped his aunt, Wanda Pratt, move into the complex; Pratt testified she invited him and made no agreement with management limiting her right to have guests.
After unloading, Odumn left with his brother to walk home and was stopped in the complex parking/common area by Officer Felix Lina, who knew of the bar but did not verify Pratt’s tenancy or Odumn’s purpose.
The trial court convicted Odumn of unlawful entry, finding he lacked a reasonable belief he had permission and citing suspicious conduct when he changed direction on seeing the officer.
On appeal the court considered whether a tenant’s invitation defeats a landlord’s barring for purposes of D.C. Code § 22‑3302(a)(1) and whether the government proved entry was “against the will of the lawful occupant or of the person lawfully in charge.”
The D.C. Court of Appeals held Pratt’s invitation and Odumn’s reasonable use of common space meant the government failed to prove that element; the conviction was reversed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a tenant’s guest can be convicted of unlawful entry when landlord has barred the guest	Landlord/security barred Odumn; entry was against the will of the person lawfully in charge/owner	Odumn was invited by tenant (aunt) for a lawful purpose and was leaving via common areas	A tenant’s guest invited for a lawful purpose who reasonably uses common areas is not on the property “against the will” for § 22‑3302(a)(1); conviction reversed
How to read “lawful occupant or person lawfully in charge” when their wishes conflict	Plain, disjunctive reading permits conviction if either occupant or person in charge objects	Common‑law landlord‑tenant principles give tenant possessory rights to invite guests; a literal reading would produce unfair results	Statute construed in light of common law: tenant’s invitation defeats owner/landlord barring in ordinary cases where guest uses common areas reasonably

Ortberg v. United States, 81 A.3d 303 (D.C. 2013) (reasonable, bona fide belief to enter is an affirmative defense to unlawful entry)
Woll v. United States, 570 A.2d 819 (D.C. 1990) (more than one lawful occupant/person in charge can exist)
Greenpeace, Inc. v. Dow Chemical Co., 97 A.3d 1053 (D.C. 2014) (tenant’s right to use common areas for ingress/egress recognized)
Sobelsohn v. Am. Rental Mgmt. Co., 926 A.2d 713 (D.C. 2007) (lease gives tenant exclusive possessory rights during term)
Bean v. United States, 709 A.2d 85 (D.C. 1998) (insufficient unlawful‑entry evidence where officer did not verify a legitimate purpose for presence)
State v. Schneider, 265 P.3d 36 (Or. Ct. App. 2011) (landlord cannot prevent tenant’s guest from using common areas)
City of Bremerton v. Widell, 51 P.3d 733 (Wash. 2002) (invitee/licensee cannot be trespasser when legitimately invited by tenant)
Commonwealth v. Nelson, 909 N.E.2d 42 (Mass. App. Ct. 2009) (person passing through halls at tenant’s legitimate invitation cannot be convicted of criminal trespass)