State of Maine v. Samuel Sanchez, 2014 ME 50

Samuel Sanchez was convicted by bench trial of criminal trespass (Class E) for entering a Rite Aid six months after a police officer was ordered not to be on the premises.
The statute provides that an unlawful entry violates trespass when the order not to enter was personally communicated by the owner or an authorized person.
Officer William Smith testified that a Rite Aid employee or staff informed him they did not want Sanchez to return, and he told Sanchez he was prohibited from returning.
The State did not present testimony from any Rite Aid employee; the trial court admitted Smith’s state-of-mind testimony for a limited purpose, but not as proof of actual authorization.
Six months later, Officer Scott Solozarno arrested Sanchez at the Rite Aid for violating the earlier order.
The trial court found Sanchez guilty, relying on a combination of information suggesting authorization to exclude Sanchez, and held that Smith could order Sanchez not to enter based on suspicion of shoplifting.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there sufficient evidence of authorization?	Sanchez argues no explicit authorization was shown.	Sanchez contends no independent officer authorization existed.	Yes; circumstantial evidence supported authorization.

State v. Gordon, 437 A.2d 855 (Me. 1981) (manager delegation to police to exclude a patron)
State v. Armen, 537 A.2d 1143 (Me. 1988) (justification for removal by authorized person in a public place)
State v. Dyer, 2001 ME 62 (Me. 2001) (owner granted express authority over premises to request removal)
State v. Ardolino, 697 A.2d 73 (Me. 1997) (circumstantial evidence supports conviction when elements proven beyond reasonable doubt)
State v. Woodard, 2013 ME 36 (Me. 2013) (evidence viewed in light most favorable to State for sufficiency review)