Court Opinion

ID: 9707490
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:13:11.842101+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:33.788211
License: Public Domain

CRONE, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I believe that Holman had Erica's consent to enter her bedroom for the limited purpose of retrieving his personal property. Accordingly, I would reverse his residential entry convietion.
The record reveals that seventeen-year-old Erica resided in her parents' home. In the recent past, Erica had given consent for Holman to enter her bedroom, an area over which most seventeen-year-olds exercise almost exelusive control and dominion. In fact, the couple had an understanding-when Erica's parents were home, Holman entered Erica's room through her bedroom window. Tr. at 21. On the night of the incident, Holman called Erica, and she gave him permission to enter her bedroom so that he could retrieve some of his clothes. Under the cireumstances, Holman reasonably believed he had Erica's consent to enter her bedroom. Cf. Smith v. State, 477 N.E.2d 857, 863 (Ind.1985) (holding that consent was not defense to burglary charge where non-oceupant son gave defendant permission to enter parents' home for the purpose of stealing their valuables); Hicks v. State, 510 N.E.2d 676, 680 (Ind.1987) (holding that burglary defendant, who claimed he was in victim's house because he mistakenly believed that victim consented to his presence as part of victim's son's alleged insurance fraud scheme, was not entitled to instruction regarding defense of mistake of fact; defendant was aware that son did not reside in victim's home, and defendant had no reasonable cause to believe that he had consent to enter home and take victim's belongings).
In this case, the person conferring the consent to enter was a resident of the home. The consent was limited to that person's area of anticipated control and privacy. The consent was for entry for a legitimate purpose, that is, retrieval of Holman's property. Eric Marcadl testified, "I met [Holman] onee and this was the second time that I seen him coming out of the window." Id. at 11. Mareadl never told Holman, or Erica, that he could not enter the Marcadl residence. Mar-cadl's major objection to Holmes was that he was dating his daughter. I believe it is reasonable to assume that a seventeen-year-old has authority to consent to entry, for an otherwise legitimate purpose, to an area of her residence over which she maintains privacy and control.
In sum, I believe that Holman properly raised consent as a defense to the residential entry charge and that the State failed to disprove that defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, I would reverse his conviction.