State v. Lilly

Ohio Supreme Court
87 Ohio St.3d 97 (1999)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A domestic relations statute providing that neither spouse can be excluded from the other's dwelling applies only to civil matters and does not create a privilege that would negate the element of trespass in a criminal burglary prosecution. For the purpose of burglary, the key consideration is which spouse has custody and control of the premises, not legal title or marital status.

Facts:

The defendant, Lilly, and his wife, Mrs. Lilly, were estranged.
Mrs. Lilly leased an apartment solely in her own name.
The defendant did not pay any rent, live at the apartment, have a key, or keep any of his belongings there.
The defendant had previously been at the apartment and, by deception, left a door unlocked.
The defendant later entered Mrs. Lilly's apartment without her permission through the unlocked door.
Upon entering, the defendant intended to commit a crime, specifically the theft of Mrs. Lilly's purse and damage to her property.

Procedural Posture:

The defendant, Lilly, was charged with burglary in an Ohio trial court.
A jury found the defendant guilty of burglary.
The defendant appealed his conviction to the Ohio Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, finding that R.C. 3103.04 prevented the state from proving the trespass element of burglary and that convicting him was plain error.
The State of Ohio then appealed this 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 state domestic relations statute, R.C. 3103.04, which provides that neither spouse can be excluded from the other's dwelling, create a privilege that negates the 'trespass' element of a burglary charge against a spouse who enters the separate residence of their estranged spouse without permission?

Opinions:

Majority - Lundberg Stratton, J.

No. A spouse may be criminally liable for trespass and burglary in the dwelling of the other spouse when that spouse is exercising exclusive custody or control over the dwelling. The court reasoned that R.C. 3103.04, located in the domestic relations chapter of the code, was intended to address civil property rights between spouses, specifically to prevent one spouse from using property title to eject the other from the marital home. It was never intended to apply in criminal contexts or to provide a defense to a crime. For burglary, the element of trespass hinges on who has 'custody and control' of the property, not legal title. Since Mrs. Lilly had sole custody and control of her separately leased apartment, the defendant's unauthorized entry constituted a trespass, satisfying that element of the burglary charge.

Concurring - Cook, J.

This opinion concurs only in the judgment, not the reasoning. The court should not have addressed the applicability of R.C. 3103.04 because the defendant waived the issue by failing to raise it at trial. The court of appeals erred by invoking the plain error doctrine, which should be used only in exceptional circumstances to correct a miscarriage of justice. The defendant's failure to raise this statutory defense in the trial court should have been dispositive, and the appellate court should not have considered it.

Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Moyer, C.J.

This opinion concurs with the majority's judgment and its holding that a spouse can be criminally liable for burglary against the other. However, it dissents from the majority's discussion of R.C. 3103.04, agreeing with Justice Cook's concurrence that the defendant waived this argument by not raising it at the trial court level.

Analysis:

This decision clarifies the intersection of domestic relations law and criminal law, firmly establishing that marital status is not a shield against criminal liability for property crimes like burglary between spouses. By distinguishing the civil purpose of R.C. 3103.04 from the protective purpose of criminal burglary statutes, the court prevents a potential loophole that could have been used to justify domestic intrusions. The ruling emphasizes 'custody and control' over formal property title, a principle that strengthens protections for individuals, particularly estranged spouses, who maintain separate residences.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: State v. Lilly (1999)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"