1) Consider again Bill Bravado and Sam Slugger from the Actus Reus Problem. Can either of them be successfully prosecuted under either of these statutes? 

§ 123.45 Trespass in the first degree

Whoever knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building or inhabitable structure or upon real property of another shall be guilty of a class B misdemeanor.

§ 123.50 Trespass in the second degree

Whoever enters unlawfully in a building or inhabitable structure or upon real property of another shall be guilty of an infraction.

What arguments would you make on behalf of the prosecution and the defense?

2) Consider the following problem:

David Divorsd was recently divorced from his wife. Pursuant to the divorce decree, their former marital residence has been awarded to his wife and he no longer has an ownership interest or any right to enter it. He erroneously believed that he had a right to enter to recover items he had left in the premises. In fact, pursuant to the decree, he could only lawfully enter with specific advance approval of his wife or the court, which he did not have.

One day, Dave entered the premises to retrieve some items he remembered he left in the basement. His wife came home and found Dave in the home. She called police to have him removed and wants him prosecuted.

1. What arguments could you make for and against the prosecution of Dave under the trespass statutes above?
2. What process are you using in developing these arguments with regard to the interpretation of these statutes?
3. What other sources, if any, would you consult?
4. What principles that you learned in the "No Vehicles" problem are you using in your analysis?