State v. Brock
140 N.E.3d 1239
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Defendant Derrick Brock was indicted on two counts of trespassing in a habitation (R.C. 2911.12(B)) for separate incidents on May 29–30, 2018; he was convicted by a jury and sentenced to consecutive prison terms totaling 36 months.
- Count One charged entry into Shelia T.’s home: Shelia fell asleep upstairs with her children; she awoke to Brock in her bedroom doorway; Brock appeared intoxicated and claimed he was at “Andy’s” house; he fled when she said she would call police.
- Police found an open downstairs window, moved furniture, an open exterior door, and burrs on a bush outside the open window; photographs showed burrs on Brock’s clothing and shoe consistent with that bush.
- Officers had earlier been called to Andrew’s (Andy’s) home that same night where Andrew had told Brock he was not allowed there and police told Brock to leave.
- At trial the court instructed the jury using the higher mental state of "knowingly" (R.C. 2901.22(B)); the State argued recklessness might suffice under amended culpability statutes but did not object to the instruction.
- The appellate court overruled Brock’s sole assignment of error (manifest weight and sufficiency as to Count One) and affirmed the conviction, holding the evidence supported a knowing trespass and voluntary intoxication is not a defense to the mens rea element.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient/conviction against manifest weight for Count One (trespass in habitation) | State maintained evidence (identification, point of entry, physical evidence tying defendant to window) supported conviction; argued recklessness could suffice under R.C. 2901.21 | Brock argued he was confused/intoxicated, thought he was at Andy’s house (where he claimed permission), and left when confronted—so lacked the requisite knowledge | Court affirmed: jury instruction used "knowingly," and the evidence (entry through window, prior admonition at Andy’s house, burrs on clothing) supported a knowing trespass; conviction not against manifest weight |
| Whether the proper mental state is recklessness or knowing for the offense | State suggested recklessness may be sufficient under statute amendments (but at trial did not object to "knowingly" instruction) | Brock argued lack of knowledge (mistaken identity of premises) | Court did not decide the statutory issue definitively because jury was instructed on "knowingly"; regardless, evidence met the higher knowing standard |
| Whether voluntary intoxication negates culpable mental state | State relied on standard law that intoxication does not negate mens rea when voluntary | Brock argued intoxication caused confusion so he lacked required mental state | Court rejected intoxication defense: voluntary intoxication cannot negate required mental state |
| Whether prior police admonition at Andy’s house affected defendant’s belief about permission | State pointed to prior incident where Brock was told to leave Andy’s home, undermining claim of permission | Brock relied on claim he believed this was Andy’s home | Court found prior admonition made Brock’s claimed belief unreasonable and supported knowing trespass |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (manifest-weight standard and when to overturn jury verdict)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard on appeal)
- State v. Tolliver, 140 Ohio St.3d 420 (Ohio 2014) (analysis of when recklessness is read into statutes that do not specify culpability)
- State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 107 (Ohio 2010) (examining when R.C. 2901.21 applies to infer culpable mental states)
- State v. Maxwell, 95 Ohio St.3d 254 (Ohio 2002) (consideration of whether entire statutory section includes a mental element)