State v. Acevedo, 315 P.3d 261

Acevedo was banned from all Wal-Mart property in Garden City in 2009 by store managers who read him a trespass form and asked him to sign; he refused.
The form warned that entering Wal-Mart after revocation could lead to criminal trespass charges and noted the revocation applied to him personally.
Nearly two years later, same Wal-Mart location prompted police involvement when Kentner saw Acevedo on the premises.
On March 26, 2011, Acevedo re-entered the Garden City Wal-Mart with two companions, stole a grinder wheel, and concealed it before leaving; security confronted him outside the store.
Acevedo claimed he did not know about the ban; he was convicted of aggravated burglary and misdemeanor theft and sentenced to 114 months; he appealed claiming several instructional and evidentiary errors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the evidence shows lack of authorization to enter	Acevedo argues the form did not revoke authorized entry; state argues revoked license supports burglary	Acevedo contends lack of proper notice/authority, or awareness of revocation, was not proved	Sufficient evidence showed lack of authority and awareness of revocation against Acevedo
Whether the jury instruction required knowledge of unauthorized entry	Acevedo asserts instruction should require knowing lack of authority to enter	State maintains instruction legally sound and adequately proved elements	Instruction was legally and factually sound; any error was harmless
Limiting instruction on prior-bad-act evidence	Acevedo did not request a limiting instruction; invited error should not preclude review	District court complied with defense strategy; invited-error rule applies	Invited-error rule; not reviewed; no reversible error per invited-error doctrine
Whether the reasonable-doubt instruction improperly used 'any'	Acevedo contends 'any' allows conviction without proving each element beyond reasonable doubt	Precedent allows this form; individual elements are stated for each crime	Instruction not clearly erroneous; supported by precedent (Herbel, Smyser) and accompanying element-specific instructions

State v. Hall, 270 Kan. 194 (2000) (re revocation of implied authorization and authority to enter a building)
State v. Fondren, 11 Kan. App. 2d 309 (1986) (authority to enter may be express or implied; revocation can be oral)
State v. Herbel, 296 Kan. 1101 (2013) (reasonable doubt instruction and burden of proof; precedent supporting challenged instruction)
State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 (2011) (harmless-error standard for instructional mistakes)
State v. Smyser, 297 Kan. 199 (2013) (affirming Herbel on burden-of-proof instruction)
State v. Plummer, 295 Kan. 156 (2012) (multistep analysis for instructional error and harmlessness)
Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (harmless-error standard for missing elements in jury instructions)