OKANLAMI v. STATE (2024)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Olubunmi Okanlami appeals her conviction for Level 6 felony residential entry. Okanlami raises two issues for our review, which we consolidate and restate as whether the State presented sufficient evidence to negate her affirmative defenses. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In 2022, Jasmine Howard and Okanlami were friends. Howard lived in Indianapolis and Okanlami lived in South Bend. Okanlami would occasionally visit Howard in Indianapolis and spend the night at Howard's residence. Howard had given Okanlami a key to the residence.

[3] On October 2, 2022, Okanlami drove down to Indianapolis with the intent to stay for “a few weeks.” Tr. Vol. 2, p. 37. But Howard was behind on her rent, and so she told Okanlami that Okanlami could stay at the residence for those few weeks if Okanlami paid Howard $300. Okanlami agreed and sent the money to Howard via Zelle. Howard met Okanlami at an Indianapolis Meijer's, where Okanlami parked her car, and the two then returned to Howard's residence.

[4] Around 11:00 p.m., Howard awoke to “a lot of ruckus” and “yelling.” Id. at 34-35. Howard left her bedroom to see what was going on, and she found Okanlami “yelling in my daughter's best friend's face.” Id. at 35. Howard was “[n]ervous and scared because [she] didn't know what was going on” or why Okanlami “was confronting a[n] 18 year old.” Id. Okanlami “kept repeating herself,” and Howard feared that Okanlami was about to physically attack her daughter's best friend. Id.

[5] Howard then told Okanlami that Okanlami “had to leave my house.” Id. at 36. Howard “packed up [Okanlami's] stuff and made sure that we had everything loaded” in Howard's car and then drove Okanlami back to Okanlami's vehicle at the nearby Meijer's. Id. Howard also sent the $300 back to Okanlami over Zelle “before we left the house” and told Okanlami that she had done so. Id. at 39, 44.

[6] At the Meijer's, Howard asked Okanlami to return the key to the residence, but Okanlami told Howard that she had “lost” it. Id. at 37. Howard thought that Okanlami was not acting like “the person I knew” because Okanlami was “not really understanding what was going on.” Id. at 40. After Okanlami had exited Howard's vehicle, Howard “immediately” left. Id. at 37.

[7] Around four or five the next morning, Howard awoke to “a loud bang downstairs” and found that her back door had been “kicked open,” although there was no damage to the door. Id. Howard then saw Okanlami on the stairs, and the two had “a confrontation.” Id. at 39. Okanlami proceeded around the residence “yelling” and behaving “erratically.” Id. Howard's son then called the police, who arrived shortly thereafter and arrested Okanlami.

[8] The State charged Okanlami with Level 6 felony residential entry. Howard and Okanlami both testified at the ensuing bench trial, and Okanlami argued that she had Howard's consent to be in the residence, or at least she reasonably believed she did. The trial court found Okanlami guilty as charged. The court then entered its judgment of conviction and sentenced Okanlami.

[9] This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[10] On appeal, Okanlami asserts that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to negate her affirmative defenses. The standard of review for a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to rebut an affirmative defense is the same as the standard for any sufficiency claim. See Willis v. State, 888 N.E.2d 177, 182-83 (Ind. 2008). We neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Id. If there is sufficient evidence of probative value to support the conclusion of the trier of fact, the judgment will not be disturbed. Id.

[11] Once a defendant demonstrates an affirmative defense, the burden shifts to the State to negate at least one element of the defense beyond a reasonable doubt. See Larkin v. State, 173 N.E.3d 662, 670 (Ind. 2021). The State may do so “by rebutting the defense directly ․ or by simply relying upon the sufficiency of its evidence in chief.” Id. (quoting Lilly v. State, 506 N.E.2d 23, 24 (Ind. 1987)). We will reverse a conviction only if no reasonable person could say the State overcame the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

[12] The State charged Okanlami with Level 6 felony residential entry. To prove that offense, the State was required to show that Okanlami “knowingly or intentionally br[oke] and enter[ed] the dwelling of another person ․” Ind. Code § 35-43-2-1.5 (2022). In her defense, Okanlami asserted that she had Howard's consent to enter into Howard's residence, or, in the alternative, that she had a reasonably mistaken belief of fact that she did have that consent. “A defendant's belief that [she] has permission to enter must be reasonable in order for the defendant to avail [herself] of the defense of consent.” Griesinger v. State, 699 N.E.2d 279, 281-82 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998), trans. denied. Similarly, “[i]t is a defense that the person who engaged in the prohibited conduct was reasonably mistaken about a matter of fact, if the mistake negates the culpability required for commission of the offense.” I.C. § 35-41-3-7.

[13] The evidence most favorable to the trier of fact's decision is sufficient to demonstrate that no one would have reasonably believed that she had Howard's consent to re-enter the residence in the early morning hours of October 3. Following Okanlami's confrontation with Howard's daughter's best friend the prior evening, Howard told Okanlami that Okanlami “had to leave my house.” Tr. Vol. 2, p. 36. Howard “packed up [Okanlami's] stuff and made sure that we had everything loaded” in Howard's car; Howard sent the $300 back to Okanlami over Zelle “before we left the house” and told Okanlami that she had done so; and Howard demanded that Okanlami return the key to the residence, which Okanlami did not do. Id. at 36, 39, 44. Howard then left Okanlami with her vehicle at the nearby Meijer's. Nonetheless, Okanlami returned to and re-entered Howard's residence in the early morning hours.

[14] Howard's words and actions were unequivocal—Okanlami was to leave and not return, and any prior consent Howard had given to Okanlami to allow Okanlami to enter into the residence was revoked. No person in Okanlami's position would have reasonably believed that Howard's prior consent for Okanlami to enter into the residence remained valid. Accordingly, the State's evidence sufficiently negated both of Okanlami's affirmative defenses.

[15] Still, Okanlami suggests that the evidence shows that her mental state during the two confrontations was compromised. But, while Howard testified that Okanlami was acting erratically and unlike the person Howard had come to know, there is no evidence in this record that Okanlami was unable to understand the events as they unfolded. Okanlami also suggests that she returned to the residence because she may have still had personal property there; but, again, this argument is not supported by the record, and at best it is simply a request for this Court to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do.

[16] For all of these reasons, the State presented sufficient evidence to negate Okanlami's affirmative defenses, and we affirm her conviction for Level 6 felony residential entry.

[17] Affirmed.

Mathias, Judge.

Altice, C.J., and Baily, J., concur.