Trespass Case Study

I. Trespass

The first issue to be decided is whether Ms. Durand’s presence on the property of Mr. and Mrs. Moore is considered “trespassing” in order to establish burglary. Under Ohio Rev. Code § 2911.12 (A), a person is guilty of burglary if she uses force, stealth, or deception to “trespass” in an occupied structure and has the purpose to commit any criminal offense. This privilege can be expressed or implied by the owner of the property. In this case, Ms. Durand was “trespassing” under the terms of the Ohio burglary statute. While servicing the property’s rehabilitation, Ms. Durand did receive permission to enter the Moore’s townhouses. However, the work Ms. Durand was contracted to perform on the house that would permit her presence on the property was concluded. After the work was done, Ms. Durand no longer had the permission from the Moore’s to be on the property. Therefore, under Ohio Rev. Code § 2911.12, Ms. Durand was a “trespasser” on the Moore’s property, because it is implied that the permission that once granted her entrance to the townhouses had expired when her contracted work was completed.

II. Purpose

The next issue to be decided is whether Ms. Durand’s trespass on the Moore’s property included a “purpose” to commit a crime. The Ohio Rev. Code § 2911.12 states that the act of trespassing must be accompanied by,

Ohio v. McLemore, No. 95CA006037, 1995 WL 515477, (Ohio App. Aug. 30, 1995). Defendant, McLemore, stole from the duplex of Metcalf, who had been incarcerated for less than three weeks. Id. McLemore argued, since he was aware the structure was unoccupied, he could not be found guilty of burglary. Id. The court affirmed the decision of the trial court, reasoning that Metcalf’s duplex was an occupied structure for purposes of the burglary statute.