Vaidik, C.J.
….
Jonathan Edward Powell was convicted in a bench trial of Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass after a bouncer at a downtown Indianapolis bar escorted him out of the bar and he refused to comply with an off-duty police officer’s request that he leave the premises. However, because the State failed to prove that Powell was on the bar’s property when the officer asked him to leave, there is insufficient evidence to support his criminal trespass conviction. We therefore reverse.
….
On October 3, 2014, … a Bartini’s bouncer asked Jonathan Edward Powell to leave and escorted him out of the bar. Once outside, Powell, who appeared intoxicated, was told by Officer Cook [a police officer working off-duty as security] that he had to leave. Powell responded that he did not want to leave and that he was going back inside the club. The officer explained to Powell that he would be arrested for trespassing. Powell began screaming at the officer and people walking by the club, and the officer “had to move him from Bartini’s side of the sidewalk over to – over across the street to the other sidewalk to get him away from people.” [Record citations omitted throughout.]
Powell was arrested and charged with one count of criminal trespass and one count of public intoxication. Following a bench trial where Officer Cook was the only witness, the trial court convicted Powell of criminal trespass but dismissed the public intoxication charge. Powell appeals his conviction.
….
To convict Powell of Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass, the State had to prove that Powell knowingly or intentionally refused to leave the Bartini’s real property after Officer Cook asked him to do so, and that Powell did not have a contractual interest in the property. See Ind. Code § 35-43-2-2(b)(2). Powell’s sole argument is that the State failed to present evidence that he was on Bartini’s property when Officer Cook asked him to leave. We agree.
Our review of the evidence reveals that the Bartini’s bouncer escorted Powell out of the club. When Powell got outside the club, the officer told him that he had to leave. Powell responded that he wanted to go back inside the club, and when the officer refused to allow him to do so, Powell began screaming at the officer and people walking by the club. The officer then moved Powell from Bartini’s side of the sidewalk to the sidewalk across the street. In this limited testimony from Officer Cook, there is no specific information as to where Powell was standing when the officer ordered him to leave. Thus, the State failed to prove that Powell refused to leave the bar’s real property after Officer Cook told him to do so, and we therefore find insufficient evidence to support Powell’s conviction for criminal trespass. See I.C. § 35-43- 202(b)(2).
….
Last, the State contends that even if the evidence did not show that Powell was on Bartini’s property when Officer Cook told him to leave, there is sufficient evidence to support Powell’s conviction for criminal trespass because a reasonable inference could be made that while inside the bar, Powell refused the bouncer’s request that he leave. First, the State’s theory at trial was that Powell committed the trespass after the bouncer brought him outside and he refused to leave. Second, we find no evidence to support this contention where Officer Cook was the only witness at trial, and he was not in the bar at the time of Powell’s expulsion. There is insufficient evidence to support Powell’s conviction.
Reversed.
Robb, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
….
Jonathan Edward Powell was convicted in a bench trial of Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass after a bouncer at a downtown Indianapolis bar escorted him out of the bar and he refused to comply with an off-duty police officer’s request that he leave the premises. However, because the State failed to prove that Powell was on the bar’s property when the officer asked him to leave, there is insufficient evidence to support his criminal trespass conviction. We therefore reverse.
….
On October 3, 2014, … a Bartini’s bouncer asked Jonathan Edward Powell to leave and escorted him out of the bar. Once outside, Powell, who appeared intoxicated, was told by Officer Cook [a police officer working off-duty as security] that he had to leave. Powell responded that he did not want to leave and that he was going back inside the club. The officer explained to Powell that he would be arrested for trespassing. Powell began screaming at the officer and people walking by the club, and the officer “had to move him from Bartini’s side of the sidewalk over to – over across the street to the other sidewalk to get him away from people.” [Record citations omitted throughout.]
Powell was arrested and charged with one count of criminal trespass and one count of public intoxication. Following a bench trial where Officer Cook was the only witness, the trial court convicted Powell of criminal trespass but dismissed the public intoxication charge. Powell appeals his conviction.
….
To convict Powell of Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass, the State had to prove that Powell knowingly or intentionally refused to leave the Bartini’s real property after Officer Cook asked him to do so, and that Powell did not have a contractual interest in the property. See Ind. Code § 35-43-2-2(b)(2). Powell’s sole argument is that the State failed to present evidence that he was on Bartini’s property when Officer Cook asked him to leave. We agree.
Our review of the evidence reveals that the Bartini’s bouncer escorted Powell out of the club. When Powell got outside the club, the officer told him that he had to leave. Powell responded that he wanted to go back inside the club, and when the officer refused to allow him to do so, Powell began screaming at the officer and people walking by the club. The officer then moved Powell from Bartini’s side of the sidewalk to the sidewalk across the street. In this limited testimony from Officer Cook, there is no specific information as to where Powell was standing when the officer ordered him to leave. Thus, the State failed to prove that Powell refused to leave the bar’s real property after Officer Cook told him to do so, and we therefore find insufficient evidence to support Powell’s conviction for criminal trespass. See I.C. § 35-43- 202(b)(2).
….
Last, the State contends that even if the evidence did not show that Powell was on Bartini’s property when Officer Cook told him to leave, there is sufficient evidence to support Powell’s conviction for criminal trespass because a reasonable inference could be made that while inside the bar, Powell refused the bouncer’s request that he leave. First, the State’s theory at trial was that Powell committed the trespass after the bouncer brought him outside and he refused to leave. Second, we find no evidence to support this contention where Officer Cook was the only witness at trial, and he was not in the bar at the time of Powell’s expulsion. There is insufficient evidence to support Powell’s conviction.
Reversed.
Robb, J., and Pyle, J., concur.