State v. Bernstein
697 N.W.2d 371, 2005 ND App 6, 2005 N.D. App. LEXIS 3 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a criminal trespass prosecution, evidence of a third party's statements to the defendant is relevant and admissible if it tends to show the defendant's subjective state of mind and negate the required element that the defendant knew they were not licensed or privileged to be on the property.
Facts:
- In 1972, LeRoy Bernstein deeded land to his daughter, Caroljoy Richard.
- In 1987, Caroljoy allowed LeRoy to move his house onto the property, where he lived until 2004.
- LeRoy's son, Loren Bernstein, visited his father daily at the house.
- In late October 2003, LeRoy was hospitalized and asked Loren to go to the house to retrieve some personal items.
- When Loren arrived, Caroljoy told him he was not allowed to enter LeRoy's house and posted a no trespassing sign.
- After learning of this, LeRoy again instructed Loren to go to the house and retrieve the items, telling him to use whatever means necessary.
- Loren returned to the property and removed the no trespassing sign while attempting to access his father's house.
Procedural Posture:
- Caroljoy Richard signed a criminal complaint against Loren Bernstein.
- The State charged Loren Bernstein with criminal trespass in a North Dakota district court (trial court).
- During a bench trial, Bernstein attempted to introduce his own testimony and an affidavit regarding his father's instructions.
- The trial court excluded this evidence, ruling it was irrelevant.
- The district court found Bernstein guilty of criminal trespass and entered an order deferring imposition of sentence.
- Loren Bernstein (appellant) appealed the order to the Supreme Court of North Dakota.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is evidence that a defendant's father instructed him to enter a property relevant to negate the 'knowing' element of a criminal trespass charge, even if the property is owned by another who has forbidden entry?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, such evidence is relevant. The criminal trespass statute requires the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew he was not licensed or privileged to be on the property. This 'knowledge' element requires a subjective inquiry into the defendant's actual state of mind, not an objective analysis of whether he was, in fact, legally privileged to be there. The father's statements are directly relevant to Loren's belief about his authority to be on the premises. The trial court erred by focusing on who had ultimate legal authority over the land, which effectively eliminated the statute's essential knowledge requirement. Furthermore, the father's statements, when offered to show their effect on Loren's state of mind, are not inadmissible hearsay because they are not being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the importance of the subjective mens rea (mental state) requirement in criminal law. By distinguishing between a defendant's actual legal status (whether he was privileged) and his subjective belief (whether he knew he was not privileged), the court protects defendants who act under a good-faith, albeit mistaken, belief of right. The case clarifies that evidence is relevant if it speaks to the defendant's state of mind, regardless of its source's actual legal authority. It also provides a clear application of the non-hearsay use of out-of-court statements to prove their effect on the listener, a crucial concept for trial practice.
