C.H. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: STEVEN J. HALBERT Carmel, Indiana STEVE CARTER Attorney General of Indiana MELLISICA K. FLIPPEN Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA C.H., Appellant-Defendant , vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 49A02-0702-JV-168 APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Marilyn A. Moores, Judge The Honorable Danielle L. Gregory, Magistrate Cause No. 49D09-0608-JD-003233 December 3, 2007 MEMORANDUM DECISION NOT FOR PUBLICATION MATHIAS, Judge C.H. was adjudicated a delinquent child for committing trespass, which would be a Class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult. C.H. appeals and argues that the evidence is insufficient to establish that he committed trespass. We affirm. Facts and Procedural History Indianapolis Police Officer Thomas Stout ( Officer Stout ) is also employed as a security guard for Kingsmill Court Apartments. On August 21, 2006, Officer Stout arrested C.H. for trespass after the officer observed C.H. inside the apartment complex. Officer Stout had previously told C.H. that he was not allowed on the property. On September 5, 2006, the State filed a petition alleging that C.H. was a delinquent child for committing trespass, which would be a Class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult. After a hearing held on December 12, 2006, the trial court found that C.H. had committed criminal trespass. A dispositional order was entered on January 23, 2007, and C.H. was placed on probation. 1 C.H. now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary. Discussion and Decision C.H. argues that the evidence is insufficient to support the delinquency adjudication. When the State seeks to have a juvenile adjudicated as a delinquent for committing an act which would be a crime if committed by an adult, the State must prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. J.S. v. State, 843 N.E.2d 1013, 1016 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied. In reviewing a juvenile adjudication, this court will consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the judgment and 1 We note that C.H. failed to include a copy of the dispositional order signed by Judge Marilyn Moores in the record on appeal. Our court confirmed that Judge Moores signed the January 23, 2007 order at issue. 2 will neither reweigh evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses. Id. If there is substantial evidence of probative value from which a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the juvenile was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, we will affirm the adjudication. Id. The State was required to establish that C.H., who did not have a contractual interest in Kingsmill Court Apartments, knowingly or intentionally enter[ed] the real property of another person after having been denied entry by the other person or that person s agent. See Ind. Code ยง 35-43-2-2 (2004). The belief that one has a right to be on the property of another will defeat the mens rea requirement of the criminal trespass statute if it has a fair and reasonable foundation. Taylor v. State, 836 N.E.2d 1024, 1028 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied (citing Olsen v. State, 663 N.E.2d 1194, 1196 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996)). It is for the trier of fact to determine whether the [juvenile] believed that he had a right to be on the property of another and whether that belief had a fair and reasonable foundation. Id. (citing Myers v. State, 190 Ind. 269, 269, 130 N.E. 116, 117 (1921)). C.H. was told that he was not allowed on the Kingsmill Court Apartment property. Two days before he was arrested for the instant offense, Officer Stout observed C.H. on the property. Tr. p. 18. Officer Stout reminded C.H. that he was not allowed on the property, but C.H. refused to leave. Officer Stout intended to arrest C.H., but after C.H. s mother told the officer that she would keep him off the property, the officer released him. Tr. p. 19. Two days later, the officer observed C.H. on the apartment complex property, 3 and when C.H. saw Officer Stout, he hid behind a bush. The officer then arrested C.H. for trespass. C.H. s argument that the State failed to prove that he did not have a right to be on the Kingsmill apartment complex property is merely a request for our court to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. We conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support the delinquency adjudication. Affirmed. NAJAM, J., AND BRADFORD, J., concur. 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
