ILNews

First impression on residential entry issue

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Since a man who had permission to be in his ex-girlfriend's garage did not have permission to be in her house, he committed residential entry as a Class D felony when he kicked in her locked kitchen door to use the phone. The issue whether an attached garage is considered a dwelling under the residential entry statute is an issue of first impression for the Indiana Court of Appeals.

In Rahn Davidson v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-0810-CR-898, Rahn Davidson contended he didn't commit residential entry because he had permission to be in his ex-girlfriend's garage. After they broke up, she allowed him to store some of his belongings in her garage, but did not allow him into her house. Davidson argued that Indiana caselaw holds that a garage is considered part of a dwelling for purposes of the burglary statute. Therefore in applying that line of reasoning to his case, he had permission to be in his ex-girlfriend's home and can't be convicted of residential entry.

The Indiana Court of Appeals found no Indiana cases dealing with this particular issue, so they turned to cases from other jurisdictions. The appellate court used State v. Cochran, 463 A.2d 618 (Conn. 1983), State v. McDonald, 346 N.W.2d 351 (Minn. 1984), and Wesolic v. State, 837 P.2d 130 (Alaska Ct. App. 1992), to hold the locked kitchen in the ex-girlfriend's residence constituted a separate structure or enclosed space for purposes of Indiana Code Section 35-41-1-10, and thus Davidson's entry into the kitchen constitutes the offense of residential entry, wrote Senior Judge Betty Barteau.

The ex-girlfriend gave Davidson permission to enter the garage, but not her house. The evidence shows there was a clear demarcation between the garage and the locked kitchen. Where there is an evidentiary boundary, such as a door that was locked at the time of the incident, the area is not only a part of the whole dwelling, but also a separate structure or enclosed space, she wrote.

Using Davidson's argument that his entry into the kitchen doesn't constitute residential entry because he was already in the dwelling amounts to carte blanche for anyone who obtains consent to enter only a portion of the residence, the judge continued. Under that rationale, a person couldn't be convicted of residential entry with respect to a separate portion of the residence even if he or she kicked in a locked door.

When the state seeks a conviction under the residential entry statute based upon unlawful entry of a separate structure or enclosed space within a dwelling, the state's burden includes a showing that any permission to be in one section of the dwelling didn't extend to the separate structure where the alleged residential entry occurred, wrote Senior Judge Barteau.

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. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT