MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Jul 22 2020, 10:22 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Valerie K. Boots Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Talisha R. Griffin Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana George P. Sherman
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Aaron Terrell, July 22, 2020
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
20A-CR-201
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Amy M. Jones,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
The Honorable Mark Renner,
Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
49G08-1911-CM-44578
Riley, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-201 | July 22, 2020 Page 1 of 5
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
[1] Appellant-Defendant, Aaron Terrell (Terrell), appeals his conviction for
criminal trespass, a Class A misdemeanor, Ind. Code § 35-43-2-2(b).
[2] We affirm.
ISSUE
[3] Terrell presents us with one issue, which we restate as: Whether the State
presented evidence sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he
committed criminal trespass.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[4] The Circle Center Mall (the Mall) is a shopping mall located in Indianapolis,
Indiana. On November 17, 2019, a security officer employed by the Mall,
Jeremiah Wilcox (Wilcox), orally banned Terrell from the Mall. Wilcox also
provided Terrell with the Mall’s written trespass notice which provided in
relevant part as follows:
[The Mall] including its parking garages and all related property
(Artsgarden, Claypool Courts, Embassy Suites, Blocks Building,
and Court Street Garage) as outlined on the attached map is
private property. Persons are permitted on this property at the
discretion of the property owner and its agents. The property
owner and its agents may revoke this permission at any time.
****
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-201 | July 22, 2020 Page 2 of 5
Due to your actions on 11/17/19 you are not permitted on the
property outlined on the map included during the period of 90
days to 2/18/2020, and must depart immediately.
(Exh. Vol. p. 4). On November 21, 2019, at around 12:30 a.m. when the Mall
was closed, Wilcox discovered Terrell sleeping in a photo booth in Claypool
Courts in the Mall. Wilcox alerted the authorities, and Terrell was arrested.
[5] On November 21, 2019, the State filed an Information, charging Terrell with
Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass. On January 7, 2020, the trial court
convened Terrell’s bench trial. Wilcox testified that on November 17, 2018, he
had told Terrell to “stay out of the [M]all[.]” (Transcript p. 12). The State did
not have the map that was attached to the Mall’s trespass notice admitted into
evidence. The trial court found Terrell guilty. Directly after rendering its
judgment, the trial court sentenced Terrell to ten days in jail.
[6] Terrell now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
I. Standard of Review
[7] Terrell challenges the evidence supporting his conviction. It is well-established
that when we review the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we
consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the
judgment. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). It is not our role as
an appellate court to assess witness credibility or to weigh the evidence. Id. We
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-201 | July 22, 2020 Page 3 of 5
will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the
elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
II. Criminal Trespass
[8] In order to prove the offense of Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass, the
State is required to show that a defendant, not having a contractual interest in
the property, knowingly or intentionally entered the property after having been
denied entry by the property’s owner or agent. I.C. § 35-43-2-2(b). The purpose
of the criminal trespass statute is to “punish those who wilfully or without a
bona fide claim of right commit acts of trespass on the land of another.” Curtis
v. State, 58 N.E.3d 992, 994 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). The criminal trespass statute
requires that a person act at least knowingly, which occurs if, “when he engages
in conduct, he is aware of a high probability that he is doing so.” I.C. § 35-41-
2-2(b). “As such, if a person has a fair and reasonable foundation for believing
that he or she has a right to be present on the property, there is no criminal
trespass.” Curtis, 58 N.E.3d at 944.
[9] Terrell argues that, because the State did not have the map or other evidence
detailing what areas the map outlined admitted into evidence, “the State failed
to provide sufficient evidence that Terrell was found on property he was
previously trespassed from.” (Appellant’s Br. p. 7). However, Wilcox testified
that he told Terrell on November 17, 2018, to “stay out of the [M]all,” and the
notice Wilcox provided to Terrell on November 17, 2018, specifically stated
that the Mall’s property included Claypool Courts, the location of the
photobooth where Terrell was found sleeping. (Tr. p. 12). Wilcox testified that
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-201 | July 22, 2020 Page 4 of 5
he found Terrell “in Claypool Court[s] in Circle Center Mall” on November 21,
2018. (Tr. p. 11). Therefore, there was evidence before the trial court to
support its reasonable conclusion that Claypool Courts was part of the Mall’s
property from which Terrell had previously been banned, regardless of whether
the map referenced in the notice was admitted into evidence. In addition, there
was no evidence that Terrell had a reasonable belief that he had a right to be
present in Claypool Courts on November 21, 2018. Crediting Terrell’s
argument would entail reweighing the evidence presented to the trial court,
which we will not do, as it is contrary to our standard of review. Drane, 867
N.E.2d at 146.
CONCLUSION
[10] Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the State proved beyond a reasonable
doubt that Terrell committed Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass.
[11] Affirmed.
May, J. & Altice, J. concur
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-201 | July 22, 2020 Page 5 of 5