Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
JACKSON v. The STATE.
Andre Jackson appeals from the judgment of conviction entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of criminal trespass.
The accusation charged Jackson with criminal trespass in violation of OCGA § 16-7-21(b)(2) in that he “enter[ed] upon the land or premises of another person, to wit: 811 West Street, Apartment B8, ․ being the residence of Felisha Lester, after receiving, prior to such entry, notice from Patrolman Paul Tucker that such entry was forbidden․”
We agree with Jackson that the evidence presented by the State in support of this charge was insufficient for two reasons:
First, OCGA § 16-7-21(b)(2) requires that the notice not to enter the premises be given to the accused by the owner or rightful occupant or by the authorized representative of the owner or rightful occupant. The State produced evidence that Officer Tucker notified Jackson not to enter the apartment based on a conversation the officer had with the manager of the apartment complex. The manager did not testify, and the substance of the conversation was not in evidence. Because there was no evidence that, when the officer gave the notice to Jackson, he was acting as the authorized representative of the owner or rightful occupant of the apartment, the evidence failed to establish an essential element of the offense. Perry v. State, 139 Ga.App. 207, 228 S.E.2d 195 (1976); Joiner v. State, 163 Ga.App. 521-522, 295 S.E.2d 219 (1982).
Second, Jackson established a defense to the charge of criminal trespass by showing that he entered the apartment with the permission of Lester, the tenant and rightful occupant of the apartment. “In the absence of a special contract, the landlord has no right to forbid a person to go upon the premises in the possession of a tenant, by the latter's permission and for a lawful purpose.” Mitchell v. State, 12 Ga.App. 557, 559-560, 77 S.E. 889 (1913); Horsely v. State, 16 Ga.App. 136, 141-143, 84 S.E. 600 (1915).
Judgment reversed.
ANDREWS, Presiding Judge.
RUFFIN and ELLINGTON, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: No. A99A2049.
Decided: January 28, 2000
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)