STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. BRYAN STRIETELMEIER, Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL NO. C-210409
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
July 8, 2022
2022-Ohio-2370
TRIAL NO. C-20CRB-18275. Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Municipal Court. Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed.
Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and Lora Peters, Assistant Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellant.
{1} A jury convicted defendant-appellant Bryan Strietelmeier of criminal trespass after he startled the neighborhood by aggressively ringing doorbells and lurking about people‘s yards in the middle of the night. Not once, but twice. He now appeals that conviction on the ground that it runs counter to the manifest weight of thе evidence. With credibility decisions entrusted to the jury, we cannot say on this record that the jury clearly lost its way in finding Mr. Strietelmeier guilty, and we accordingly affirm the judgment below.
I.
{2} Well past midnight on September 23, 2020, Rhonda Mapes’ doorbell began ringing. Not expecting company at such a late hour, Ms. Mapes peered out the door and saw a man she did not recognize. When the man continued to ring the bell for five minutes or so, Ms. Mapes called her daughter in a frazzled state, concerned that he might attempt to break in. She relayed real-time updates to her daughter on the unwanted visitor‘s movements: he searched under the flowerpots on the porсh; he wandered around Ms. Mapes’ car, pulling the door handle to see if it would open; he stared into the windows of her car; he came back and rang the doorbell several more times; and finally, he returned to his оwn car (parked in Ms. Mapes’ driveway) and drove across the street into a neighbor‘s driveway. At some point during this phone conversation, Ms. Mapes’ daughter received a third call via call-waiting, informing them that anothеr neighbor had called the police, who were en route to investigate.
{3} Officers from the Colerain Township Police Department arrived and found Mr. Strietelmeier sitting in his car, still parked in the neighbor‘s driveway. Mr. Strietelmeier told the officers that he was looking for “Brandy‘s” house, because his
{4} Around 2:15 a.m., the same man returned to Ms. Mapes’ home and again started ringing the doorbell. This time, Ms. Mapes immediately called 9-1-1 and rushed downstairs to wake up her husband. Ms. Mapes asked the 9-1-1 operator to send officers quickly because the stranger—now identified as Mr. Strietelmeier—was back, and he was peering through the glass, beating on the frame of the door, and jerking the door handle. The Mapeses watched out the window as Mr. Strietelmeier walked towards the rear of their home and disappеared behind a Penske box truck parked in their driveway. Officers arrived shortly thereafter and arrested Mr. Strietelmeier near the truck.
{5} This second incident was captured on the officer‘s body-worn camera. On the videо, Mr. Strietelmeier told the officers that Donna became upset when he returned home earlier without the surprise from Brandy. Donna never gave Mr. Strietelmeier an exact address, but told him that Brandy supposedly lived just a fеw streets over from them in a house resembling his father‘s house. In an attempt to appease Donna, Mr. Strietelmeier made a second attempt at locating the elusive Brandy, and again zeroed in on the Mapes residence because it featured Spanish-type arches on the porch reminiscent of his father‘s house. He claimed to have walked
{6} A jury found Mr. Strietelmeier guilty of criminal trespass, a fourth-degree misdemeanor under
II.
{7}
{9} Mr. Strietelmeier refutes the notion that he knowingly arrived at the Mapeses house without permission because the police told him they didn‘t know who lived there (leaving open the possibility that it could be Brandy‘s house, which, in his view, would have accorded implied permission for him to enter the property), and because the police told him not to return to the neighbor‘s house but did not mention the Mapeses house. This largely mirrors the rationale advanced by defense counsel during trial, with the added justification that Mr. Strietelmeier could not possibly know hе was at the Mapeses home without permission because Ms. Mapes never instructed him to leave.
{10} We are not persuaded. To begin with, as to the “knowingly” element, “[n]o requirement exists that ‘no trespassing’ signs be postеd on property, or that the
{11} Likewise, Mr. Strietelmeier‘s contention that he believed himself privileged to enter the property is without merit. ” ‘Privilege’ means an immunity, license, or right conferred by law, bestowed by express or implied grant, arising out of status, position, office, or relationship, or growing out of necessity.”
{13} Mr. Strietelmeier also testified that he may have been suffering from an untreated mental illness at the time which prevented him from fully cоmprehending the situation and realizing his mistake. While we are sympathetic to this possibility (which certainly seems plausible under the circumstances), his counsel did not request a competency evaluation prior to triаl or present a defense based on mental illness. Because the defense never substantiated the point at trial or presented it to the jury, we decline to address it on appeal. Accordingly, Mr. Strietelmeier‘s conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
*
*
*
Judgment affirmed.
ZAYAS, P. J., and WINKLER, J., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its entry on the date of the release of this opinion.