State v. Barksdale
2 Ohio St.3d 126, 443 N.E.2d 501 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Entering a premises that is open to the public does not constitute a trespass for the purposes of a breaking and entering charge, even if the entrant harbors a secret intent to commit a felony. The privilege to enter is not vitiated by a subsequent criminal act or a pre-existing felonious intent.
Facts:
- An automobile dealership, Arena Dodge, maintained a used car lot.
- Arena Dodge extended an implied invitation to the general public to enter the lot to view the vehicles, even when the business itself was closed.
- The appellee entered the used car lot.
- The appellee's purpose for entering the lot was not to shop for a car, but to commit a felony theft.
- While on the lot, the appellee broke into a locked car and stole property, an act constituting a felony.
Procedural Posture:
- The appellee was indicted for breaking and entering in violation of R.C. 2911.13(B).
- Following a trial in the court of first instance, the appellee was convicted.
- The appellee appealed his conviction to the intermediate court of appeals.
- The court of appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, overturning the conviction.
- The State of Ohio, as appellant, appealed the reversal to the Supreme Court of Ohio.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a person who enters a premises open to the public, but with the secret intent to commit a felony, thereby forfeit their privilege of entry and commit a trespass for the purposes of the breaking and entering statute?
Opinions:
Majority - Locher, J.
No. A person who enters a premises open to the public with a felonious intent does not forfeit their privilege of entry and therefore does not commit a trespass under the breaking and entering statute. The statute requires a trespass as a core element, which is defined as entering 'without privilege.' A tacit invitation to the public confers privilege. To hold that a secret felonious intent negates this privilege would lead to a dramatic and oppressive expansion of criminal liability, making shoplifters, or even a person entering their home to commit tax fraud, guilty of breaking and entering. This was not the legislative intent, and criminal statutes must be strictly construed against the state. This reasoning aligns with precedents from Florida, Wisconsin, and North Carolina, which hold that a lawful entry with a 'sinister design' does not retroactively become unlawful.
Dissenting - Holmes, J.
Yes. A person who remains on a premises for a purpose that is lawfully restricted, such as committing a felony, commits a trespass. While the appellee's initial entry onto the lot was privileged, that privilege was limited to the purpose of viewing cars. The privilege terminated when the appellee remained on the premises for a different, restricted purpose—committing a theft. The trespass statute, R.C. 2911.21(A)(2), prohibits knowingly remaining on premises for a restricted purpose, which is precisely what occurred here, thus satisfying the trespass element of the breaking and entering charge.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the scope of Ohio's breaking and entering statute, preventing what the court viewed as potential prosecutorial overreach. It establishes a clear distinction between the physical act of entry and the defendant's mental state, holding that intent alone cannot transform a lawful entry into a criminal trespass. The ruling forces prosecutors to charge defendants based on the crimes they actually complete (e.g., theft) rather than bootstrapping a breaking and entering charge onto any felony committed on property the defendant doesn't own. This prioritizes legislative intent and the rule of lenity over a more expansive interpretation of criminal trespass.
