State v. Jackson — Court upheld habitation-trespass conviction based on late-night entry through an ajar door

Case
State of Ohio v. Darryeon M. Jackson
Court
Ohio Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District, Greene County
Judge
Christopher B. Epley (appointment info not available); Tucker (appointment info not available); Huffman (appointment info not available)
Date Decided
August 14, 2026
Docket No.
2025-CA-57
Topics
Criminal Law; Trespass in a Habitation; Sufficiency of Evidence; Manifest Weight
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Fairborn police responded to a dispute between Darryeon Jackson and his neighbor at approximately 1:00 a.m. Less than two hours later, the neighbor reported that someone had entered her apartment without permission and removed property. Another resident showed police cellphone video depicting someone who appeared to be Jackson going in and out of the apartment.

Jackson initially denied entering the apartment but later told police that he had opened the door and gone inside to see whether the neighbor was still there. At trial, he testified that her door had been slightly ajar, that knocking caused it to open farther, and that he stepped inside and walked around looking for her. A jury convicted him of fourth-degree-felony trespass in a habitation when a person is present or likely to be present. He appealed, challenging both the sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence.

The Court’s Holding

The Second District held that sufficient evidence supported a finding that the victim was likely to be present. The entry occurred between 1:00 and 2:45 a.m., when people ordinarily are home asleep; Jackson knew the victim had been home less than two hours earlier; and his stated purpose of finding her to have a conversation further supported an objectively logical expectation that she could be there.

The court also held that sufficient evidence established entry by force. Under Ohio law, force includes any physical effort used to gain entrance. Jackson’s testimony that he knocked on the ajar door, causing it to open enough for him to enter without permission, allowed the jury to find the force element satisfied. Because the statute requires force, stealth, or deception in the alternative, proof of stealth or deception was unnecessary. The court further concluded that the jury did not clearly lose its way in crediting the State’s evidence and affirmed the conviction.

Key Takeaways

  • Whether someone is “likely to be present” is an objective inquiry based on all surrounding circumstances, not the defendant’s subjective belief.
  • A late-night entry, combined with knowledge that the resident had been home recently, supported a logical expectation that the resident could be present.
  • Knocking an ajar door farther open can constitute “force” because Ohio law requires only physical effort used to gain entrance.

Why It Matters

The decision illustrates the relatively modest evidentiary showing needed to establish both “likely to be present” and “force” under Ohio’s habitation-trespass statute. Prosecutors may rely on timing and recent knowledge of a resident’s whereabouts to prove likely presence, while even minimal physical effort that facilitates unauthorized entry may satisfy the force element.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top