ILNews

Dissenting judge argues tenants can’t ask drunk, disorderly man outside door to leave

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An argument that tenants of an apartment complex may not ask a drunk and threatening man to leave common areas convinced one judge, but the majority of an appeals panel found otherwise, warning that such a holding would “defy logic and lead to an absurd result.”

A divided Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed multiple convictions in Jeremiah Walls v. State of Indiana, 55A05-1211-CR-603, for which Walls was sentenced to three years in prison.

Walls, intoxicated, rambling and falling down, awoke residents of Countryside Apartments in Martinsville shortly after 5 a.m. on July 1, 2012. He began tapping on a resident’s door with his feet, which awakened the tenant who asked him to leave. Walls later knocked on the resident’s door and asked to spend the night. The resident refused and Walls began pounding on the door and yelling.

Walls later attempted to enter the apartment of another tenant awakened by the disturbance. He tried to kiss her hand and grabbed her neck, according to the record. The woman and her roommate managed to push Walls out and lock the door, after which Walls began banging on that door.

Police soon came and Walls was arrested; the intimidation charges came from his threat to kill an officer and the officer’s father.

A Morgan Superior jury convicted Walls of two counts of Class D felony intimidation and misdemeanor counts of resisting law enforcement, criminal trespass, two counts of battery and disorderly conduct. A divided appeals panel affirmed the conviction and sentence.

Dissenting Judge Patricia Riley said she would affirm all of the convictions against Walls except for criminal trespass. Citing Aberdeen Apartments v. Cary Campbell Realty Alliance, Inc. 820 N.E.2d 158, 164 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), Riley wrote, “Our court has already established case law on this issue, and though it may seem ‘absurd’, this court has strictly interpreted the criminal trespass statute which requires that entry on property be denied by either the owner or its agent.

“Pursuant to Aberdeen,” Riley wrote, “tenants of Countryview Apartments … only had exclusive possession of the apartments they leased and not of the common areas. They could therefore not ask Walls to leave the common areas of the apartment.”

“We need not resolve the precise nature of tenants’ rights to or status when in the common areas of an apartment complex in this case,” Judge Elaine Brown wrote. “We need address only whether (the tenants) had a sufficient interest in their leased apartment units to support their requests for Walls to leave the areas immediately outside their doors.”

“Walls was not merely present in the common areas but also was positioned immediately outside the doors giving access to the leased apartment units, persistently banging on the doors to the units, and in (the roommates’) case, had his foot through the threshold of the door,” the majority held.

“Under the circumstances of this case, the tenants, while not in exclusive control of the common areas, had a sufficient possessory interest in, at a minimum, their apartment doors, the threshold of their apartments, and the immediate adjacent areas by which they accessed their leased apartment units, to request that a person leave that specific area and stop persistently banging on their doors. A rigid rule, applied without exception, that a tenant does not have a sufficient possessory interest in such property would defy logic and lead to an absurd result,” Brown wrote.


 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • How much is it going to cost taxpayers/
    We now have a drunk going to prison for up to 3 years and the taxpayers are going to pay for it. The drunk now has a felony on his record and may now become permanently unemployable as no employer will want to hire him. He presumable can get government assistance after he gets out. The county prosecutor needs to think about this.

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT