State v. Gorsuch, Unpublished Decision (6-5-1998)
State v. Gorsuch, Unpublished Decision (6-5-1998)
Opinion of the Court
On December 16, 1997, appellant moved for a dismissal of her case arguing that a spouse could not be held liable for trespassing in the dwelling of his or her spouse. The court denied appellant's motion. Thereafter, she entered a no contest plea to the charge of criminal trespass. She was fined $100 plus costs and received a two day suspended jail term. Appellant now appeals setting forth the following assignment of error:
"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN OVERRULING THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS."
Appellant contends one spouse cannot be prosecuted for trespassing in the dwelling of another spouse. In support, appellant cites State v. Middleton (1993),
"Interest in the property of the other.
"Neither husband nor wife has any interest in the property of the other, except as mentioned in section
3103.03 of the Revised Code, the right to dower, and the right to remain in the mansion house after the death of either. Neither can be excluded from the other's dwelling, except upon a decree or order of injunction made by a court of competent jurisdiction."
Middleton cited the case of State v. Herder (1979),
"[U]nder the law of Ohio, neither a husband nor a wife may be excluded from the other's dwelling, even when the parties are living separate and apart, unless a court order is obtained. * * * In light of the clear policy expression set forth in R.C.
3103.04 , one spouse cannot be criminally liable for trespass in the dwelling of the other." Middleton, supra at 407-408, citing Herder, supra at 75-76.
The appellate court agreed with the above law and reversed his burglary conviction noting that R.C.
The state argues that R.C.
The record shows that appellant was not convicted of trespassing in a marital residence. Rather, she was convicted of trespassing on the premises of Donald Gorsuch. Accordingly, the court did not err in denying appellant's motion to dismiss. Appellant's sole assignment of error is found not well-taken.
On consideration whereof, the court finds that substantial justice has been done the party complaining, and the judgment of the Fulton County Court, Western Division, is affirmed. Costs assessed to appellant.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. Peter M. Handwork, P.J. George M. Glasser, J. Melvin L. Resnick, J.
CONCUR.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.