Sorry, but you still haven't explained how or why he's in her house nor what business he has being there, which isn't his house regardless of how long he may have lived there. (However, it does reveal that you adhere to a worldview that a man's home is his castle, even when it isn't.) If he had to look for his ex, as you suggested, then she did not let him into her home. In your worldview, the ex-wife is by definition vindictive, again lacking any evidence to support it.

Also note the phrase “for the purpose of arousing and gratifying (his) sexual desire." You, of course, will dismiss that as hearsay, her word against his -- unless, of course, he were foolish enough to leave a fresh DNA sample at the scene. Do you really believe those words would be in the charging document without evidence to support them?

Of course, you do, you being you.