ILNews

COA finds church member’s lack of brotherly love not sufficient to uphold conviction

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A criminal conviction that resulted from church member’s demand for quiet during a worship service has been overturned by the Indiana Court of Appeals on the grounds that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction.

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s conviction of Paul R. Semenick for criminal trespass, as a Class A misdemeanor. Semenick, a long-time member of Lakeview Christian Church, was arrested and charged with criminal trespass and disorderly conduct following a scuffle at a Sunday worship service.

The incident began when Semenick told a volunteer greeter and other church members they were speaking too loudly. When one of the congregants placed his hand on Semenick’s shoulder to apologize, Semenick told him to “get your hand off me.” The volunteer greeter then brought into the sanctuary an off-duty police officer, Sgt. John Dierdorf, who patrols the church’s parking lot during services.

Although Semenick was seated and participating in the worship, the police sergeant asked him to leave. Semenick exited into the main hallway but did not leave the building and “kept on ranting,” referring to the police officer as a “rent-a-cop,” until he was arrested.

At the conclusion of the trial, Semenick was acquitted of disorderly conduct but convicted of criminal trespass. The trial court sentenced him to 365 days of imprisonment, suspending 363 days and ordering him to stay away from Lakeview.

Semenick appealed.

In reversing the trial court’s ruling in Paul R. Semenick v. State of Indiana, 49A02-111-CR-1035, the Court of Appeals ruled the state failed in its burden to prove material elements of criminal trespass because it did not provide evidence that disavowed Semenick’s contractual interest in being on the property and it did not delineate Dierdorf’s authority.  

Judge Paul Mathias dissented, concluding the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the jury’s conviction.

“Under the applicable standard of review for claims challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a jury verdict, I conclude that the state presented sufficient evidence that Sgt. Dierdorf was an agent of the Church and that Mr. Semenick had no contractual interest in Church premises,” Mathias wrote. “And even if Mr. Semenick had some limited right to be on the Church premises, I believe his disruptive behavior terminated that limited right.”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT