in the Matter of D.J.H.

Citation: Not availableDocket: 02-05-00039-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; January 11, 2006; Texas; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

D.J.H. appeals a trial court's order adjudicating him as having engaged in delinquent conduct for criminal trespass. The State's petition alleged that on January 5, 2004, D.J.H. entered the home of James Spielmaker without consent and with knowledge that entry was forbidden. D.J.H. argues the evidence was legally insufficient, claiming that Spielmaker did not explicitly tell him to leave and that he was attempting to retrieve his CDs.

The court affirmed the trial court's decision after reviewing the evidence in favor of the verdict. It established that “notice” under the criminal trespass statute can be communicated orally by the owner or someone authorized. “Consent” is defined as assent, either express or implied, with “effective consent” including permission from someone legally permitted to act for the owner.

Evidence showed that Spielmaker owned the residence and had previously informed D.J.H. and his parents that D.J.H. was not allowed in the home uninvited, particularly after dark, a rule communicated by Sherrie Curry, Spielmaker's girlfriend. On the day in question, the children, who had authority to ask guests to leave, instructed D.J.H. to exit when the streetlight turned on, and he complied. However, upon returning without permission, D.J.H. was discovered by Spielmaker and a friend while rummaging through items on the coffee table, prompting him to flee. Testimony confirmed that neither Spielmaker nor the children had granted D.J.H. permission to re-enter the home.

Kelsey testified that Spielmaker confronted appellant for entering his house without permission, leading to Spielmaker sending Lane to investigate. Lane brought appellant back, and when appellant failed to respond to Spielmaker's inquiries, Spielmaker slapped him. Appellant's mother subsequently filed an assault charge against Spielmaker, who reported the trespassing only after this charge was filed. The evidence indicated that appellant did not have Spielmaker's effective consent to re-enter the residence after leaving, as neither Spielmaker nor the Curry children invited him back. Kelsey observed appellant letting himself back in through a closed front door, and Spielmaker was unaware of appellant's presence until he saw him in the living room. Appellant had prior notice of the lack of consent; the Curry children, expected to enforce the 'streetlight rule,' instructed him to go home, and he had been informed by Sherrie Curry and Spielmaker multiple times not to enter the house uninvited. The court found the evidence sufficient to establish the elements of criminal trespass beyond a reasonable doubt, thus overruling appellant's first point. Regarding the second point, appellant's challenge to the factual sufficiency of the evidence was deemed waived because he did not file a motion for new trial addressing this issue, following precedent set in In re M.R. The court affirmed the trial court’s adjudication order. Justice Gardner dissented without opinion on the legal sufficiency of the evidence, while Justice Walker concurred in part and dissented in part, arguing that the failure to file a motion for new trial should not forfeit the factual sufficiency complaints.

Respectfully dissenting, Justice Sue Walker emphasizes the refusal of the majority to follow established legal principles. Citing the Texas Penal Code, she notes that the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt applies in juvenile adjudication. Key legal precedents are referenced, including Jackson v. Virginia and Hampton v. State, which affirm the standards for evaluating evidence in criminal cases. Testimonies are mentioned, indicating that the appellant returned to a home uninvited to retrieve CDs, with conflicting accounts from witnesses regarding the intent of this return. Additionally, it is highlighted that a key witness had previously pleaded guilty to an assault charge. Walker reiterates the binding nature of Supreme Court decisions as precedent, stressing the importance of adhering to established law rather than allowing lower courts to modify it.