ENCHANTED FOREST

COURT OF APPEALS
GOLDILOCKS
Petitioner,
- versus
PEOPLE OF ENCHANTED FOREST
Respondent,
x----------------------------------------------------x
MEMORANDUM
The petitioner, by the undersigned counsel, respectfully submits this
Memorandum.
THE FACTS
On December of 2004, Goldilocks, a five-year-old child, entered into the
house of the Baer family to take shelter as it was bitterly cold and rainy on
that day. While inside the house, Goldilocks allegedly ate the food of the
Baer family and broke a chair. A charge of criminal trespass was then
brought before the Regional Trial Court against Goldilocks. After trial, the
Regional Trail Court found Goldilocks of the crime charged.
THE ISSUES
I.
II.
III.

The Regional Trial Court erred in refusing to allow the accused,

Goldilocks, to introduce evidence in support of the defenses of
necessity and lack of capacity.
The Regional Trial Court erred in not considering that the accused
is a minor, thus, is unable to fully discern her act of entering into
the house of the Baers without permission.
The Regional Trial Court erred in not considering that the terrible
weather conditions that day could have formed a well-founded
belief on the part of the accused that she was in danger.

DISCUSSIONS
I.

The crime of Criminal Trespass is statutorily defined as the act of

KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY entering onto the property of
another without the owners permission. A conviction for the said
crime may only be had if it be proven beyond reasonable doubt
that the accused entered into anothers property with clear intent
and full discernment.
Although Goldilocks admitted that she entered the Baers house
without their permission, such admission will not deprive/ nor
tantamount to waiver of the right of the accused to present/adduce
evidence/ defenses available to her.(the same does not divest her
the right to due process and present evidence on her behalf)
The Regional Trial Court, in not allowing Goldilocks to introduce
her evidences on the defenses of necessity and lack of capacity,
clearly prevented the accused from casting a shadow of doubt to
the prosecutions case. A shadow of doubt that could have led to
her acquittal.

II.

Criminal Trespass is the act of KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY

entering onto a property of another without the owner's permission.
A minor is a person who is under the age of legal competence. A
minor is presumed to be incapable of criminal activity.
A minor (Goldilocks) in the case at bar, lacks discernment- the
quality of being able to know, grasp, and comprehend intelligently
what is good or bad; or what is lawful or unlawful.
In the case of Enchanted Forest v. Hansel and Gretel, Gr. No.
13579, the Court overturned the conviction of trespassing of two
three year-old children on the ground that given the young age of
the children, they could not possibly discern the fact that they may
have entered a private property.
Goldilocks, at her tender age, lacks capacity to know, grasp, and
comprehend that entering the property of another without the
consent of the owner is unlawful.

In the case of Enchanted Forest v. Big Bad World, Gr. No. 24680, a
conviction for criminal trespass is upheld upon proof that the
accused had CLEAR INTENTION TO ENTER THE PROPERTY
AND TO CAUSE DAMAGE THEREON.
In the case at bar, the mere presence of a broken chair does not
prove a clear intention (intent) on the part of Goldilocks to cause
damage on the Baers property. Absent any proof that Goldilocks
did intent to enter and cause damage to the Baers property, the
conviction for criminal trespass should not be upheld.
III.

Goldilocks, in the state of Necessity, in her pliant, tender very

young mind, thought that she will get sick or even die because she
was not wearing her boots, a typical thinking of a minor, a child
under distressing circumstances (a bitterly cold and rainy day).
Goldilocks in the act of self-preservation due to her distressing
circumstances, unknowingly entered onto the property of another
without their consent, should not be punished gravely for the act
she doesn't know or comprehend to be illegal, unlawful, and
against the law.

Ergo, factually speaking ( in view of the foregoing arguments), the accused

must be acquitted.