Late one night, an attractive, single mother of two wakes up because she hears a noise coming from her living room. Believing it is one of her young sons, she walks into the living room to see what he was doing. However, when she turns on the light, she finds a 20-something year old male passed out drunk on her living room sofa. She immediately calls the police and after respond, they find that the drunk male claimed to have been at a nearby "frat party" and thought he was inside his own residence. It was confirmed that he did live in a rent house just a few doors down. It was also noted that the woman's home and the defendant's rent house were built by the same builder, but did look quite a bit alike.

Considering the facts of this scenario:

(1) What crime(s) could or should the young drunk man have been arrested for?

(2) Of these crimes, which would be the easiest to prove (considering both the mens rea and actus reus - coupled, of course, with concurrence)? Why or why not?