State v. Cam

Questions of fact not raised at the trial court level will, on reconsideration, be viewed as consistent with the trial court's ultimate conclusion.

Defendant appealed for reconsideration of a decision upholding several criminal convictions and
sentences. In its original opinion the Court of Appeals concluded that Defendant had not manifested a clear intent to exclude visitors from his property. The factual basis concerned evidence of signs along Defendant’s driveway, one of which stated “Private Property.” On reconsideration
Defendant argued that there was also a “no trespassing” sign. The Court assumed that either the trial court did not see the words “no trespassing”
or did not assign significance to them against the record as a whole. The Court held that even with
the photograph of the sign including the words “no trespassing” Defendant did not manifest a clear
intent to exclude visitors. The Court also rejected without discussion Defendant’s further contention
that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences for theft because all the crimes were
related and must be treated as the same criminal episode. Reconsideration allowed; former opinion adhered to as modified.