Paul R. Semenick v. State of Indiana
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 505
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Semenick, a long-time Lakeview Christian Church member, attended a Sunday service where a dispute over reverence led to a confrontation among parishioners and security personnel.
- Semenick complained about Halbert and Martin during the service; Halbert left to seek security involvement as tensions rose.
- Sergeant Dierdorf, an off-duty police officer contracted by the church, entered the sanctuary and asked Semenick to leave; Semenick initially refused.
- In the hallway, Semenick challenged the officers’ authority and was arrested for Criminal Trespass and Disorderly Conduct.
- At trial, Semenick was convicted of Criminal Trespass and sentenced to prison with most of the term suspended; the conviction was reversed on appeal, with dismissal of the Disorderly Conduct charge.
- The dissent argues the State showed sufficient evidence that Dierdorf acted as the church’s agent and that Semenick, as a church member, lacked a contractual interest in the premises, among other arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence proves Criminal Trespass beyond reasonable doubt | Semenick lacked a contractual interest; no agent authority shown | Semenick’s conduct violated trespass; Dierdorf acted as church agent | Insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction for Criminal Trespass |
| Whether Dierdorf was an agent of the Church for trespass purposes | Dierdorf acted under church orders and had authority to remove disruptors | Dierdorf’s authority limited to parking lot; no sanctuary authority shown | No substantial evidence that Dierdorf was the Church’s agent to remove Semenick at sanctuary |
| Whether Semenick had a contractual interest in Church premises | Semenick was a longtime parishioner with a right to be present | Parishioner status does not create contractual interest in property | Conviction cannot be sustained on lack of contractual interest as reasonably apparent |
| Whether Semenick’s disruptive behavior terminated any limited contract to be on premises | Disruptive conduct could end any limited right to be on property | Not addressed; disruptive behavior insufficient | Evidence supports loss of any limited right due to disruption |
| Whether First Amendment considerations affect this prosecution | Arrest violated free exercise of worship | Issue waived for not raising in trial court | Waived; not considered on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Lyles v. State, 970 N.E.2d 140 (Ind. 2012) (disproving reasonably apparent contractual interests)
- Woods v. State, 703 N.E.2d 1115 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (contractual interest must be limited and not allow disruption)
- Taylor v. State, 836 N.E.2d 1024 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (disruptive conduct can terminate contractual interest)
- In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (U.S. 1970) (standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Beattie v. State, 924 N.E.2d 643 (Ind. 2010) (jury verdicts reviewed for sufficiency of evidence)
- McHenry v. State, 820 N.E.2d 124 (Ind. 2005) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence on an appeal)
- A.E.B. v. State, 756 N.E.2d 536 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (disorderly conduct context for contractual interest)
- Glispie v. State, 955 N.E.2d 819 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (agency cannot be proven by agent’s declaration alone)