Patricia Kittrell v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
49A02-1704-CR-845
| Ind. Ct. App. | Oct 31, 2017Background
- In Sept. 2015 Kittrell, a former Meijer employee who had been let go, entered a Meijer store and had a confrontation with employees; store managers and loss-prevention officer James Austin told her to leave and that she was not allowed on the property.
- Police Officer Crooke arrived, placed Kittrell in handcuffs during a parking-lot confrontation, and warned she would be arrested if she returned. Kittrell left.
- On Sept. 15, 2015, Kittrell returned to Meijer and was seen on self-checkout; employees told her she was not supposed to be there and called police. Surveillance video confirmed her presence.
- The State charged Kittrell with Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass (Ind. Code § 35-43-2-2, pre-2016 version).
- At the bench trial the court admitted employee testimony and surveillance video; the court found Kittrell guilty and sentenced her to a 365-day suspended sentence and a one-year stay-away order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Kittrell) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that Kittrell was denied entry by property owner/agent | Testimony showed Meijer employees and loss-prevention explicitly told Kittrell she was not allowed on the property on Sept. 7 | No agent of Meijer clearly communicated an indefinite ban; only Officer Crooke told her to leave and she reasonably believed denial was temporary | Evidence supported denial: Meijer employees (Austin and managers) personally told her she was not allowed; conviction affirmed |
| Sufficiency of mens rea (knowingly/ intentionally re-entering after denial) | Kittrell knowingly re-entered on Sept. 15 after being told Sept. 7 she was not allowed | Kittrell had a good-faith belief the denial was temporary because she was not arrested and not told she was permanently banned | Court found her admission she returned after being told she was not allowed sufficiently shows requisite intent |
| Whether denial must be expressly indefinite/permanent | State: statute requires only personal communication of denial (oral/written) | Kittrell: denial must indicate an indefinite/permanent ban or persist for a reasonable time | Court refused to add an indefiniteness requirement; statute’s personal communication suffices |
| Whether police warning can substitute for owner/agent denial | State suggested Crooke’s warning supports denial | Kittrell: police are not Meijer agents; police warning alone insufficient | Court agreed police warning by non-agent is not substitute; but independent Meijer employee testimony supplied denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 2007) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Willis v. State, 983 N.E.2d 670 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (purpose of criminal trespass statute)
- Glispie v. State, 955 N.E.2d 819 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (police warnings by non-agent do not constitute denial by property agent)
- Frink v. State, 52 N.E.3d 842 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (refusing to add elements to trespass statute beyond its terms)
- Blair v. State, 62 N.E.3d 424 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (affirming trespass conviction where defendant returned after being told to leave)
- Olsen v. State, 663 N.E.2d 1194 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (no trespass when defendant has fair and reasonable foundation to believe a right to be present)