[muawiyah]

The court had no need to deal with unlawful entry at all. Once that woman called in the cops, that was the end of any such claim.

She lived there. He'd moved out. The court seems to believe there are facts behind the claim ~ which can only mean they didn't read the briefs, they were inebriated, or they are incompetent.

Hey, Daniels, the commission system for picking judges flunked a test. Dump it.

[Girlene]

The court had no need to deal with unlawful entry at all.

The Indiana Court of Appeals found that the trial court's refusal of Barnes tendered jury instructions was not harmless error. They also found that the evidence was insufficient to sustain disorderly conduct. They ordered a new trial on battery and resisting charges.

So it seems the Appeals Court DID think his right to reasonably resist an unlawful entry was relevant at least at the jury instruction point.