WHAT HOLMAN THE CORRUPT, ANOTHER STUPID CRIMINAL, IS TRYING TO CONCEAL FROM THE PUBLIC: ISSUE #9 - KNOWINGLY ARGUING AGAINST THE STATE OF THE LAW

HOMAN THE CORRUPT tries to conceal that one his "boys" argued against the state of the law, decided by the Ninth District Court of Appeals, and, in fact, overturning LAPDOG COLLIER and SALISBURY, THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, ON THE VERY SAME ISSUE.

            Salisbury Argued Against the Lesser-Included Offense of Criminal Trespass Knowing Full Well That The Trial Judge Had Been Previously Reversed by The Ninth District Court of Appeals on the Very Same Issue in 2008 in the Medina County Case of State v. Morris, 2008-Ohio-3209, Tried by Salisbury Before This Same Trial Judge.

            As the trial court consulted with counsel in preparation of the jury instructions, defense counsel moved the trial court to charge the jury with the lesser-included offense of Criminal Trespass.  (Tr. at 764-765, 940-943, 949-951)  Salisbury, however, argued against the lesser-included offense of Criminal Trespass based upon the premise that a trespass into an occupied structure does not permit the trial court to charge the jury with the lesser-included offense of Criminal Trespass.  (Tr. at 761-764, 936-937, 945-946, 948)  Salisbury overlooked the fact that the Ninth District Court of Appeals overturned this same trial on the identical issue in the case of State v Morris, 2008-Ohio-3209.  Salisbury tried the same Morris case before this same trial judge.

            Citing now to the record in the case at bar:

            SALISBURY:     Judge?

            COURT:              Yes?

SALISBURY:     If I could just address that point, Judge.  My position – and I think there are cases that back this up – that a criminal trespass  -- the criminal trespass would not be appropriate.

(BRIEF INTERRUPTION IN THE PROCEEDINGS)

SALISBURY:      The State’s position is, the criminal trespass could not be an appropriate lesser included offense on an aggravated burglary, because the specific facts of the case are that he trespassed into a habitation….

                             The trespass into a habitation, Judge, is a burglary. It can’t be a criminal trespass.

COURT:              And a trespass into an unoccupied structure is a criminal trespass.  Is that your point?

SALISBURY:      Right, not into a habitation…. I believe there are cases that say it is fact specific, and under these facts that have come in front of this jury, criminal trespass does not apply.

                             We are not seeking a lesser included offense.

MS. CRAMER:  I did some research to be absolutely sure, but it’s my understanding that criminal trespass is a lesser included offense ….

COURT:              Can I tell you what I think he’s arguing?  And I’ve heard it before.  I guess that criminal trespass can, in certain situations, be a lesser included.  He’s (sic) arguing that, according to the facts of the case, because it’s a trespass into a habitation, that it’s different.  In other words, I think that you’re going to find that there are criminal trespass instructions given, but factually it would require them - - he’s arguing factually it wouldn’t.  So if you can find some cases, I’d love to look at them.

(Tr. 762 -765)

COURT:              Okay.  Here’s what I’m going to do. I’m giving the (A) (1) and (A) (4).  I’m not giving the criminal trespass

(Tr. 949)

In it’s opinion in State v Morris, the Ninth District Court of Appeals noted:

Defendant was indicted on one count of burglary in the Medina County Court of Common Pleas in violation of R.C. 2911.12(A)(3), a third-degree felony for his unlawful entry into the home of Brenda Roberts and assault of Ms. Roberts’ guest, Allan Leach, on January 29, 2006.

State v Morris, 2008-Ohio-3209, ¶ 2

              The facts in Morris are such that Defendant Morris entered the habitation of Brenda Roberts, which, at the time of the alleged offense, was occupied by at least Allan Leach.  Thus, the facts in Morris are strikingly similar to the case at bar insofar as Morris had frequently entered the home of Roberts on prior occasions, just as the Petitioner had entered the Leighton home on numerous prior occasions, although in the case at bar Petitioner had formed no intent, and did not commit a criminal offense within the Leighton residence.  Thus, in both Morris and the case at bar, privilege became an issue.

              The Court of Appeals in Morris held:

              Criminal trespass is a lesser included offense of aggravated burglary.

State v. Morris, ¶ 5, Id.

             

If under any reasonable view of the evidence it is possible for the trier of fact to find the defendant not guilty of the greater offense and guilty of the lesser offense, the instruction on the lesser included offense must be given.  The evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the defendant. (Emphasis added) State v Deimling (Dec. 20, 2000), 9th Dist. No. 99CA007496 at *1 quoting State v Wilkins (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 382, 388.

State v. Morris, ¶ 6, Id.

              This prosecutor cannot deny that Salisbury was aware that Criminal Trespass is a lesser-included offense of Aggravated Burglary. Nor can this prosecutor deny that Salisbury argued against charging the jury with the lesser-included offense of Criminal Trespass in the case at bar.

MUCH MORE TO COME ....