State v. Hill
2016 WL 4529584, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 854, 497 S.W.3d 391 (2016)
Rule of Law:
A person can be charged with first-degree criminal trespass on property they own if they knowingly remain unlawfully after a lawful order, such as an ex parte order of protection, enjoins their presence.
Facts:
- In December 2013, Mary Vinson and Frederick Hill, III (Defendant) were living together in a mobile home in Bowling Green, Missouri.
- Vinson and Defendant jointly owned the mobile home, while Defendant was responsible for making the rent payments for the lot.
- On December 5, 2013, Vinson applied for and obtained an ex parte order of protection against Defendant.
- The ex parte order of protection stated that Defendant was not allowed to enter or stay upon the premises wherever Vinson may reside, specifically listing the address of the mobile home as her residence.
- On the same day, a Pike County deputy served the ex parte order of protection on Defendant at the mobile home and read the entire Order verbatim to him.
- The deputy informed Defendant that he had to leave the mobile home per the Order, but Defendant refused, stating he had not done anything wrong and would not leave unless by force.
- Other officers arrived, and sometime between twenty minutes and an hour later, Defendant came out of the mobile home on his own without incident.
Procedural Posture:
- The State charged Frederick Hill, III (Defendant) with the class B misdemeanor of trespass in the first degree.
- At trial, the defense moved for judgment of acquittal at the close of the State’s case and again at the close of all evidence; the trial court denied both motions.
- A jury found Defendant guilty of trespass in the first degree.
- The trial court sentenced Defendant to ten days in jail.
- Defendant appealed his sentence and judgment of conviction to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District.
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 commit first-degree criminal trespass under Missouri law when they remain on property they jointly own after being served with an ex parte order of protection prohibiting their presence on the premises?
Opinions:
Majority - Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., Judge
Yes, a person does commit first-degree criminal trespass under Missouri law when they remain on jointly owned property after being served with an ex parte order of protection prohibiting their presence. The court found that Missouri's first-degree trespass statute (§ 569.140) defines the offense as 'knowingly enters unlawfully or knowingly remains unlawfully' without specifying that the property must be 'of another.' The court emphasized that the plain meaning of the statute does not explicitly preclude an owner from being charged with trespassing on their own property if their presence becomes unlawful. The court further relied on § 455.050, which explicitly states that an ex parte order of protection may include terms 'temporarily enjoining the respondent from entering the premises of the dwelling unit of the petitioner when the dwelling unit is jointly owned, leased or rented or jointly occupied by both parties.' This statutory language demonstrates legislative intent to protect victims in their own homes, even by temporarily overriding a property owner's privilege. Therefore, being served with an order of protection prohibiting an owner's presence renders any continued stay 'unlawful' under the trespass statute.
Concurring - James M. Dowd, P.J.
Judge Dowd concurred in the majority opinion without offering separate reasoning.
Concurring - Kurt S. Odenwald, J.
Judge Odenwald concurred in the majority opinion without offering separate reasoning.
Analysis:
This case clarifies a significant point in Missouri criminal law regarding property rights versus protective orders. It establishes that property ownership does not create an absolute privilege against criminal trespass, especially when an individual's presence is lawfully enjoined by a court order intended to protect a domestic violence victim. The decision underscores the priority of safety provided by protective orders over standard property privileges. This ruling provides a clear legal basis for law enforcement to enforce protective orders in shared residences, potentially impacting future cases by bolstering the effectiveness of such orders and ensuring that individuals cannot evade trespass charges by claiming ownership.
