MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Oct 31 2017, 8:34 am
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
CLERK
regarded as precedent or cited before any Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
court except for the purpose of establishing and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Christopher P. Phillips Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Phillips Law Office P.C. Attorney General of Indiana
Monticello, Indiana
Henry A. Flores, Jr.
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
David Denver Sasser, October 31, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
79A05-1705-CR-1020
v. Appeal from the Tippecanoe
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Sean M. Persin,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
79D05-1610-F6-903
79D05-1611-CM-4039
Pyle, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A05-1705-CR-1020 | October 31, 2017 Page 1 of 5
Statement of the Case
[1] Davis D. Sasser appeals his conviction after a bench trial for Level 6 felony
residential entry.1 His sole argument is that there is insufficient evidence to
support his conviction. Concluding that the evidence is sufficient, we affirm
Sasser’s residential entry conviction.
[2] We affirm.
Issue
The sole issue for our review is whether there is sufficient
evidence to support Sasser’s residential entry conviction.
Facts
[3] The facts most favorable to the verdict reveal that in October 2015, Dr.
Angelica Koppalis (“Dr. Koppalis”) hired sixty-two-year-old Sasser to help her
rake and blow leaves. Dr. Koppalis paid Sasser $10.00 an hour in cash. The
second time that Sasser worked at her house, Dr. Koppalis went out and picked
up lunch for them both. When she returned home, Dr. Koppalis gave Sasser
his sandwich outside. Sasser followed the doctor back into her house and
grabbed her. He asked Dr. Koppalis if she thought he smelled good and told
1
IND. CODE § 35-43-2-1.5. Sasser also pleaded guilty to Class A misdemeanor failure of a sex offender to
possess identification. See IND. CODE § 11-8-8-15. Sasser does not appeal that conviction.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A05-1705-CR-1020 | October 31, 2017 Page 2 of 5
her that he had taken a shower in the bathroom adjacent to her bedroom. Dr.
Koppalis became very upset and told Sasser to leave.
[4] One day the following week, Dr. Koppalis returned home from work and was
“shocked” to see Sasser sitting in her living room. (Tr. 24). She had not given
him permission to be in the house, and she asked him to leave. Sasser asked the
doctor why she did not want to sit and talk to him and then grabbed her and
asked her if it felt good to hug. Dr. Koppalis told Sasser to leave, and, this
time, he did.
[5] Dr. Koppalis contacted the police, and Sasser was subsequently charged with
Level 6 residential entry. At trial, Sasser testified that Dr. Koppalis had invited
him to stay at her house while she was at work. According to Sasser, Dr.
Koppalis had also given him access to the refrigerator and let him sleep in her
shed.
[6] At the end of the bench trial, the trial court concluded that Sasser’s testimony
was not credible. Specifically, the trial court explained to Sasser as follows:
It comes down to who do I believe, who do I find credible. And
I believe – I found her to be credible. I don’t see any evidence
where you had permission to be in this house. You went into the
house, you committed the crime of residential entry. I believe
the [S]tate has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
(Tr. 104).
[7] Sasser now appeals.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A05-1705-CR-1020 | October 31, 2017 Page 3 of 5
Decision
[8] Sasser argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his residential entry
conviction. Our standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence claims is well
settled. We consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences
supporting the verdict. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We do
not reweigh the evidence or judge witness credibility. Id. We will affirm the
conviction unless no reasonable fact finder could find the elements of the crime
proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. The evidence is sufficient if an
inference may be reasonably drawn from it to support the verdict. Id. at 147.
[9] In order to convict Sasser of Level 6 felony residential entry, the State had the
burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Sasser knowingly or
intentionally broke and entered Dr. Koppalis’ dwelling. See I.C. § 35-43-2-1.5.
On appeal, Sasser does not contest that he knowingly or intentionally broke and
entered Dr. Koppalis’ dwelling. Instead, he argues that he had Dr. Koppalis’
consent to enter her residence.
[10] Lack of consent is not an element of residential entry that the State has to
prove. Holman v. State, 816 N.E.2d 78, 81 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied.
Rather, it is the defendant’s burden to claim and prove consent as a defense.
McKinney v. State, 653 N.E.2d 115, 118 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995). A defendant’s
belief that he has permission to enter a residence must be reasonable in order for
him to avail himself of the consent defense. Id. Once a defendant successfully
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A05-1705-CR-1020 | October 31, 2017 Page 4 of 5
raises the consent defense, the State has the burden of disproving the defense
beyond a reasonable doubt. Holman, 816 N.E.2d at 81.
[11] Here, there is no evidence that Sasser’s alleged belief that he had permission to
enter Dr. Koppalis’ home was reasonable, and therefore he cannot avail himself
of the defense of consent. Specifically, Sasser testified that his belief that he had
permission to enter Dr. Koppalis’ home was based upon her invitation to him.
However, Dr. Koppalis’ testimony contradicted Sasser’s claims, as she denied
ever inviting Sasser into her home. Sasser’s argument is simply a request for us
to reweigh the evidence and reassess witness credibility, which we will not do.
See Drane, 867 N.E.2d at 146. The State presented sufficient evidence to
support Sasser’s residential entry conviction.
[12] Affirmed.
Riley, J., and Robb, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A05-1705-CR-1020 | October 31, 2017 Page 5 of 5