State v. Hudson
106 N.E.3d 205
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- On Jan. 8, 2017 Larry D. Hudson was found asleep on the couch in the lower apartment of a two-unit Dayton property owned and occupied by Nancy Lucy; he had no permission to be there.
- Lucy left at ~7:00 a.m. (locked door but not deadbolt) and returned ~8:40 p.m.; she discovered the deadbolt locked and later found two broken windows and a torn rear window screen.
- Officers awakened Hudson, arrested him, and found a bent screwdriver, a BB gun, 49 rounds of ammunition, and three metal pipes with burnt ends the officers identified as crack pipes; no drugs were recovered on him.
- A recorded jail call included Hudson saying he was in an abandoned place with a pistol, drugs, and criminal tools when arrested; he also indicated he thought the property was a “bando.”
- After a bench trial Hudson was found guilty of burglary under R.C. 2911.12(A)(2) and sentenced to two years; on appeal the court reviewed sufficiency and manifest-weight challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence sufficed to prove burglary under R.C. 2911.12(A)(2) (trespass in an occupied structure when a person is present or likely to be present, with purpose to commit any criminal offense) | State: Lucy lived in the lower unit and was present/likely present; Hudson entered by force and had tools/drug paraphernalia indicating criminal purpose. | Hudson: He reasonably believed the unit was abandoned and entered only to sleep; lacked intent to commit a crime inside. | Reversed burglary conviction for insufficiency and manifest-weight; evidence did not prove purpose to commit a criminal offense. |
| Whether evidence proved Hudson acted with the requisite mental state as to “likely to be present” | State: residence was occupied and regularly inhabited; Lucy returned at night and found Hudson; objective circumstances made presence likely. | Hudson: believed unit was abandoned so not subjectively aware occupants were likely to be present. | Held that “likely to be present” is an objective inquiry; here facts supported that a person was present/likely present. |
| Whether possession of paraphernalia and tools established intent to commit a crime inside | State: possession of crack pipes, screwdriver, and statements support intent to use/possess drugs or possess criminal tools. | Hudson: mere possession of paraphernalia/tools without more does not establish purpose to commit a crime inside; may have brought them in but had no preexisting intent to use them there. | Court: possession of pipes and screwdriver alone insufficient to prove intent to commit a criminal offense in the habitation. |
| Whether a lesser-included offense applies | State: court should consider trespass in habitation as lesser included. | (No specific contrary argument reported.) | Court modified outcome: vacated burglary conviction and remanded to enter conviction and sentence for trespass in a habitation when a person is present or likely to be present (R.C. 2911.12(B)). |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kilby, 50 Ohio St.2d 21 (discusses when occupants' temporary absence still satisfies "likely to be present")
- State v. Fowler, 4 Ohio St.3d 16 (holding that evidence must show occupants were present or likely to be present at the time of the offense)
- State v. Gardner, 118 Ohio St.3d 420 (addresses proving purpose to commit any criminal offense during burglary)
- State v. Fontes, 87 Ohio St.3d 527 (related to forming intent during trespass/aggravated burglary context)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (standard for manifest-weight review)
- Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (canon limiting literal statutory readings that produce absurd results)
- DiSanto v. Pennsylvania, 273 U.S. 34 (principle that statutory language must be interpreted in light of realities)