The circuit court acknowledged that there was no evidence Baker had been forbidden to be on the property in the past: "Certainly there is no evidence as to the latter point he has. Baker contended that there was no proof that he is not allowed to be on the property, no proof that the true owner posted the property, and no proof that even if it is so posted that he is not allowed to be on the property.
Baker argued that Code § 18.2-119 requires evidence that he was banned from the property or the property was posted by the owner and that Baker was a person not allowed *663 to be on the property. Airy Street after having been forbidden to do so, in violation of § 18.2-119 of the Code of Virginia." At the conclusion of the Commonwealth's evidence, Baker moved to strike the trespass charge. Following his arrest, Baker told the police officers that his cousin owned the property.īaker entered a plea of not guilty to the trespassing charge, which specifically alleged that he "did go upon or remain upon the posted property at 717 Mt. Officer Vasquez saw a "no trespassing" sign on the side of the property while walking Baker back to the police car. While pursuing Baker, Corporal Buffkin observed a "no trespassing" sign posted on the front of the property. When Baker reached a residence at 717 Mount Airy Street (the property), he cut through the yard alongside the residence and ran through a hole in a wooden fence, where Corporal Buffkin tackled him.
As the police officers started getting out of their police car in order to talk to Baker, Baker immediately began running away from the officers through the yards of houses on Mount Airy Street. The police officers saw Baker walking on Mount Airy Street.
Vasquez, and both were in uniform with their police badges displayed. Corporal Buffkin was providing field training to a recruit officer, John H. We awarded Baker this appeal in which he challenges the Court of Appeals' decision to uphold his conviction.īaker presents three grounds upon which he contends the Court of Appeals erred in its ruling: (1) the Commonwealth failed to prove that the subject property was posted by the true owner, (2) the circuit court violated his due process rights by allowing an inference that either the true owner had posted the property or the property was posted to shift an evidentiary burden to him, and (3) the evidence was insufficient to prove that he was legally excluded from the property.Ĭorporal Buffkin of the City of Petersburg Bureau of Police was dispatched to the 700 block of Mount Airy Street in Petersburg to investigate a report of gunshots. Baker appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed his conviction in an unpublished opinion.
In this appeal, we consider whether the Commonwealth is required to establish as an element of the offense of trespassing that a "no trespassing" sign on private property was posted by a person authorized by the statute to exclude entry upon the property.Įrnest Baker was convicted at a bench trial in the Circuit Court of the City of Petersburg of trespassing in violation of Code § 18.2-119. Present: KEENAN, KOONTZ, KINSER, LEMONS, GOODWYN, and MILLETTE, JJ., and LACY, S.J. Mims, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. Harris, Assistant Attorney General (William C. Hall, Senior Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. 656 Ernest BAKERĬOMMONWEALTH of Virginia.