A Warren County man’s conviction for aggravated burglary has been upheld by the Twelfth Appellate District of Ohio, despite his argument that he was too impaired by drugs to knowingly enter the victims’ home. The appellate court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the conviction, and that the defendant’s claim of mistakenly entering the wrong house—while high—was not a reasonable defense under Ohio law.
Justin Matthew Cherry was convicted in the Warren County Court of Common Pleas for aggravated burglary after breaking into a Springboro residence in the early morning hours of April 2, 2024, while the homeowners were asleep. Cherry, who did not request a jury trial, was found guilty following a bench trial presided over by the trial judge.
The Incident: A Homeowner’s Discovery
The case revolved around the events at the home of Thomas and Teresa Hunsaker. Thomas Hunsaker testified that he and his wife went to bed around 10:00 p.m. on April 1st. Early the next morning, Thomas was alerted by a motion sensor camera in his back garage. The footage showed an unidentified man—later identified as Cherry—inside the garage at 2:57 a.m., appearing to have “something large” tucked into his back pocket, which the homeowner feared was a weapon.
Alarmed, Thomas investigated. He discovered the door connecting the garage to the main house had been opened and closed, and motion sensors indicated movement in the living room shortly after. Upon checking the pantry, Thomas found items moved, an open Gatorade bottle, and wrappers from food his family hadn’t purchased. Although Thomas noted that only small food items appeared to be missing, the fact remained that an intruder had entered their occupied home while they slept, armed with what appeared to be a knife.
Identification and Arrest
Law enforcement quickly linked the intruder to Cherry. Officer Antwaun Scott testified that other officers recognized Cherry from the security footage, noting he was wearing the same clothing and carrying the same knife in the same position as seen in a recent, separate police matter.
Officers located Cherry at a nearby residence, 65 Eleanor Drive, just 0.3 miles away from the Hunsaker home. Cherry was found asleep on a couch after a woman at the residence allowed officers inside. Officer Scott identified Cherry in court as the man he arrested.
During a subsequent interview, Cherry’s story shifted. He initially claimed to be at a friend’s house until late, then went home. Later, he became emotional and claimed he had consumed marijuana edibles and “didn’t even know how [he] got” to the Hunsaker Residence, suggesting he woke up there.
Further evidence solidified the link: DNA testing revealed Cherry’s profile on the mouth of the cap of the partially consumed Gatorade bottle found inside the home.
The Defense: Mistake Due to Intoxication
Cherry’s defense centered on negating the “knowingly” element required for aggravated burglary. He argued that due to heavy drug use, he genuinely believed the Hunsaker Residence was actually 65 Eleanor Drive, his friend’s house, and therefore lacked the necessary criminal intent to trespass without privilege.
However, the appeals court swiftly dismissed this line of reasoning, citing precedent and state law.
The Court’s Ruling on Intent and Intoxication
The appellate court addressed Cherry’s two assignments of error—that the conviction lacked sufficient evidence and was against the manifest weight of the evidence—collectively. The core issue was whether the State proved Cherry acted “knowingly.”
Judge Byrne, writing for the court, pointed to Ohio Revised Code § 2901.21(E), which states that voluntary intoxication cannot be considered when determining the existence of a mental state required for a crime like aggravated burglary.
“As such, Cherry cannot claim, as a matter of law, that his intoxication prevented him from acting knowingly,” the opinion stated.
Furthermore, the court found Cherry’s alleged mistake of fact—believing he was at 65 Eleanor Drive—was unreasonable given the substantial differences between the two properties. Detectives presented photographs highlighting these discrepancies: the Hunsaker driveway was on the left side of the house while the Eleanor Drive garage was on the right; the Hunsaker garage door faced forward, while the other faced the side; and the general organization of the two homes was markedly different.
The trial court was entitled to disbelieve Cherry’s inconsistent explanations and theories, especially given the circumstantial evidence suggesting he entered in an “elusive manner” to avoid the doorbell camera.
The court also addressed the intent requirement for the burglary itself. Even if Cherry initially entered only intending to look around, the evidence showed he later consumed the Hunsakers’ food and drink without permission. Under Ohio law, a defendant can form the purpose to commit a criminal offense at any point during a trespass, satisfying the requirement for aggravated burglary.
Ultimately, the Twelfth Appellate District concluded that the evidence overwhelmingly supported the conviction, affirming the trial court’s judgment.