Let’s take the “property” issue first. Back when I was in a legal clinic in law school, we deal with case regarding whether seizing an individual’s dogs (he ran a kennel) because his premises were somehow in contravention of the kennel ordinance was a deprivation of property — whether he even had a property interest in the dog. It’s a different issue, sure, but we researched it and decided: Yes, a dog may be property. Thus, in Mr. Stetson’s case, the predicate offense of larceny was, well, predicated upon the notion that the property at issue was the dog (not the money he asked for). The most obvious prosecution theory is that he went into the home and stole a dog. Cool, huh?

On to the dwelling. I had a case in which a client was charged with B&E, that state’s LIO of Burglary. His defense was that there was no B&E as he was lawfully permitted to be on the premises. He lived there. And even though his Mom was all, “I kicked him out,” I was all, “Yeah, no. He lives there.” The added wrinkle, of course, was that the mother kicked him out because she was afraid of his chronic masturbation. At the time of the offense, he was an undiagnosed schizophrenic, so the whole thing blew up into a commitment hearing anyway. No one wanted him, and at the end of the day, the prosecutor liked my “he lived there” defense, and basically dropped the case on the promise that I not tell anyone.

But I digress.

In Mr. Stetson’s case, more facts are needed. Was he living with Mom at the time of the alleged offense? What’s his deal? Is there any way to demonstrate that he did not remain unlawfully? I think if it wasn’t his residence, then consent to remain lawfully can still be rescinded, assault or not. That’s what cool about having your own place: you get to kick people out whenever you want. It’s fun.

So that’s my $0.02, and I really didn’t answer either of your questions at all. Yay.