Claim of Right
As applied to criminal trespass: Purpose of the criminal trespass statute
As applied to criminal trespass: In general
As applied to criminal trespass: Purpose of the criminal trespass statute
• The criminal trespass statute’s purpose is to punish those who wilfully or without a bona fide claim of right commit acts of trespass on the land of another.
Woods v. State, 703 N.E.2d 1115, 1117 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998)(emphasis added)
Semenick v. State, 977 N.E.2d 7, 9-10 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied(quoting Woods v. State, 703 N.E.2d 1115, 1117 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998))
Willis v. State, 983 N.E.2d 670, 671 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013)(citing Semenick v. State, 977 N.E.2d 7, 9-10 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied)
As applied to criminal trespass: In general
• [The defendant’s] belief and bona fide claim of right defeat the mens rea requirement of the criminal trespass statute and render her conviction erroneous.
Woods v. State, 703 N.E.2d 1115, 1117 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998)
See Myers v. State, 130 N.E. 116, 117 (Ind. 1921)(“The law of criminal trespass and of this case is that criminal intent is an essential element for consideration, and if the act prohibited is committed in good faith, under a claim of right, no conviction will lie. . . .”)
• The belief that one has a right to be on the property of another will defeat the mens rea requirement of the criminal trespass statute if it has a fair and reasonable foundation.
Taylor v. State, 836 N.E.2d 1024, 1028 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied(citing Olsen v. State, 663 N.E.2d 1194, 1196 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996))
A.E.B. v. State, 756 N.E.2d 536, 541 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001)(citing Olsen v. State, 663 N.E.2d 1194, 1196 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996))
See Olsen v. State, 663 N.E.2d 1194, 1196 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996)(quoting Myers v. State, 130 N.E. 116, 117 (Ind. 1921))(“The belief that one has a right to be on the property of another ‘must have a fair and reasonable foundation.’”)
• It is for the trier of fact to determine whether the defendant believed that he had a right to be on the property of another and whether that belief had a fair and reasonable foundation.
Taylor v. State, 836 N.E.2d 1024, 1028 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied(citing Myers v. State, 130 N.E. 116, 117 (Ind. 1921))
A.E.B. v. State, 756 N.E.2d 536, 541 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001)(citing Myers v. State, 130 N.E. 116, 117 (Ind. 1921))
See Myers v. State, 130 N.E. 116, 117 (Ind. 1921)(emphasis added)(“[B]ut the belief in the right to do the act complained of must have a fair and reasonable foundation, which is a question for the jury . . . .”)
• For more information on the crime of criminal trespass, please review Criminal Trespass.