State v. Ellis
2013 WL 175003, 109 So. 3d 944, 2012 La.App. 4 Cir. 0540 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A conviction for home invasion can be upheld if the defendant's entry into a dwelling owned by another was unauthorized at the specific time of entry, even if prior permission existed or the defendant had a temporary living arrangement that was subsequently revoked.
Facts:
- For several years, Cardell Ellis and Lakisha Bush were in a dating relationship and had a daughter, K.B., who was four years old at the time of the incident.
- In early November 2010, Cardell Ellis, who was sleeping in his car, paid Lakisha Bush's mother, Betty Bush, $200 to stay temporarily at the Residence (1825 Clouet Street) until he found his own apartment, though he was not a party to the lease.
- On the morning of November 10, 2010, while Cardell Ellis, K.B., Betty Bush, and Rufus Ferdinand were at the Residence, Betty Bush, feeling unwell, asked Cardell Ellis to watch K.B., to which he responded with vulgar and threatening language.
- Because of Cardell Ellis's behavior, Betty Bush locked him out of the Residence, and after he called the police to retrieve his belongings, police instructed him to take his items and leave.
- After Lakisha Bush returned home, Cardell Ellis, who was sitting on the porch drinking beer, forced his way back into the Residence by knocking down Rufus Ferdinand as he was returning inside after taking out trash or retrieving Mr. Ellis's belongings.
- Inside the Residence, Cardell Ellis attacked Betty Bush and Lakisha Bush, hitting Lakisha in the head with a metal napkin holder and parts of K.B.'s chair, and threatening Betty Bush with the napkin holder.
- Cardell Ellis then went outside and broke the driver’s side windshield on Lakisha Bush’s vehicle.
- Upon arrival, Officer Cleveland Johnson observed minor swelling on Lakisha Bush's face, damage to a child's chair inside, and a broken windshield on Lakisha's vehicle; Cardell Ellis, who appeared intoxicated, gave a different home address and was concluded by the officer not to live at the Residence and to have entered without permission.
Procedural Posture:
- On December 22, 2010, Cardell Ellis was charged by bill of information with home invasion of an apartment.
- On January 4, 2011, Cardell Ellis pled not guilty at his arraignment.
- On February 8, 2011, the trial court found probable cause to substantiate the charges.
- On October 24, 2011, the matter proceeded to a jury trial.
- The jury found Cardell Ellis guilty as charged.
- On November 3, 2011, Cardell Ellis filed motions for new trial and post-verdict judgment of acquittal with the trial court.
- On November 17, 2011, the trial court denied both of Cardell Ellis's motions.
- Cardell Ellis waived all delays and was sentenced to five years imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence, but no fine was imposed.
- Cardell Ellis, as appellant, appealed his conviction and sentence to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit.
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 sufficient evidence exist to support a conviction for home invasion when the defendant claims his entry was authorized due to a prior temporary living arrangement, despite being locked out and instructed by police to leave before forcing entry?
Opinions:
Majority - Rosemary Ledet
Yes, sufficient evidence exists to support the conviction for home invasion because Cardell Ellis's entry was unauthorized at the specific time of the incident, despite his previous temporary stay at the Residence. The court, applying the Jackson v. Virginia standard, found that a rational trier of fact could have concluded that all elements of home invasion were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. While Ellis had previously stayed at the Residence and paid money to Betty Bush, the testimony indicated this was a temporary arrangement until he found his own apartment, which he acknowledged having done by the date of the incident. Betty Bush explicitly locked Ellis out of the Residence, called Lakisha for help, and unequivocally testified that Ellis did not have permission to enter when he forced his way in. The court cited jurisprudence, including State v. Nunnery, State v. Cojoe, and State v. Spain, to emphasize that the fact a person previously had permission to enter a house does not imply continued authorization, and the relevant inquiry is whether the particular entry was authorized. Furthermore, police had instructed Ellis to leave and take his belongings earlier that day, and he provided a different home address upon his arrest. The court concluded that, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the evidence was sufficient to convict Ellis. The court also identified an error patent regarding the trial court's failure to impose a mandatory fine for home invasion, requiring a remand for its imposition.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the critical "unauthorized entry" element for home invasion convictions, particularly in scenarios involving prior domestic relationships or temporary living arrangements. It establishes that explicit revocation of permission, such as being locked out or receiving a police instruction to vacate, overrides any past implied or express authorization. This principle is crucial for protecting individuals' control over their dwellings and is especially pertinent in domestic disturbance cases, ensuring that claims of prior residency do not automatically negate criminal liability for forced entry after permission has been withdrawn. The ruling reinforces that the authorization must be present at the precise moment of entry, not merely at some previous point in time.
