Hammerhead
Master
No. 49A02
"Here, the undisputed evidence shows that on December 3, 2010, Lyles owned an account with Chase with a positive balance. Thus, Lyles had a contractual interest in the Chase premises. There is no evidence that Lyles contractual interest had been terminated at the time of his arrest. As in Woods, while there may have been sufficient evidence to support a conviction for disorderly conduct, the State did not file any such charge. The State has failed to prove an essential element of criminal trespass, namely, that Lyles did not have a contractual interest in the property, and the evidence is insufficient to support Lyles' conviction. See Woods, 703 N.E.2d at 1117."
For some reason, I'm wanting to remember that in previous discussions of this nature about the contractual interest in a place such as a bank because of an account, that there has not been case law available or known to be available to provide precedent in such a matter. Members here have wondered if a bank account was enough to consider a contractual interest in the property thereby negating any trespass for not following a gun buster sign. I may be remembering incorrectly and it may have been agreed upon that having an account could be enough but there may not have been case law to back it up.
I want to thank you singlestacksig for providing such case law. Rep inbound.
However, when discussing your status at a Credit Union and not a Bank (yes, there's a difference), I refer you to my previous post in this thread.