Opinion ID: 3133296
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Birthday Party.

Text: At trial, and in the parties’ appellate arguments, there was extensive discussion regarding the occurrence or non-occurrence of a birthday party somewhere within the apartment complex 1 Ehrlick provided varying explanations about the cause of the hole in the wall. 2 on July 24. Accordingly, a somewhat detailed factual background may assist in understanding the parties’ arguments as they relate to the occurrence or non-occurrence of a birthday party on July 24. The first mention of the birthday party came in Ehrlick’s call to 911 on the evening of July 24. Ehrlick told the dispatcher, “I’ve been out looking for a couple of hours around our apartment complex …. Everybody keeps directing me to the–a birthday party. That’s where everybody’s saying that he’s at but I can’t find this birthday party or nothing.” When officers subsequently contacted Ehrlick, he told Officer Guy McKean that R.M. had come into the apartment from playing outside three times between 7:00 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. to ask if he could go to a birthday party, and each time Ehrlick told R.M. that he could not. Around 10:00 p.m. on July 24, a security guard for the complex heard Ehrlick by the community pool asking residents if they knew of a birthday party, and if so, where it might be. At trial, there was no evidence that a birthday party took place within the apartment complex on July 24. The State’s theory throughout the trial was that Ehrlick and Jenkins fabricated the story of a birthday party in order to distract law enforcement and deflect attention from themselves. 2 In support of this theory, the State introduced evidence that no birthday party occurred and that a birthday party at that late hour did not make sense. Ehrlick maintains that the actual existence of a party is irrelevant because he never said that there was in fact a party, just that R.M. had asked to go to a party.