Legal Opinion · Dissent

Walter Lyles v. State of Indiana

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided June 29, 2012No. 49S02-1201-CR-49Published

1DissentRucker, Justice

I respectfully dissent. I agree with the majority that “[t]he term ‘contractual interest in the property is not defined by the criminal trespass statute or elsewhere in the Indiana Code.” Op. at 143 n. 2. However, our Court of Appeals has declared that the term “ ‘contractual interest,’ as it is used in the criminal trespass statute, refers to the right to be present on another’s property, arising out of an agreement between at least two parties that creates an obligation to do or not to do a particular thing.” Taylor v. State, 836 N.E.2d 1024, 1026 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (citing A.E.B. v. State,…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. A.E.B. v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 2001
  2. Olsen v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 1996
  3. Taylor v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 2005
  4. Woods v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 1998
  5. Pogue v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 2010

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API