283 So.3d 154
Miss.2019Background
- In October 2014 Emily Anne Bowman (formerly Emily Anne Chenoweth) regularly used a hunting camp on Southland Plantation during bowhunting season; she intended to spend the weekend of Oct. 17–19, 2014 there.
- Southland Tube, Inc. owned the camp; Emily Anne used it by permission from her father or the caretaker, Wayne Stewart, Jr.
- In the early morning of Oct. 18, 2014 Chad Bowman entered the camp, assaulted Wayne and Emily Anne, and was later charged with burglary of a dwelling, aggravated assault, and attempted murder.
- A jury acquitted Bowman of aggravated assault and attempted murder but convicted him of burglary of a dwelling; the court sentenced him to twenty years with ten suspended and five years post-release supervision.
- On appeal Bowman raised multiple claims (insufficiency/weight of evidence on the dwelling-house element, consent, jury instructions, admission of prior-act and substance-use evidence under Rule 404(b), and sentencing/parole misapplication). The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the conviction but remanded for resentencing due to statutory confusion about parole eligibility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Bowman) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency — dwelling-house element | The camp qualified as Emily Anne’s dwelling because she occupied it during hunting season and intended to stay the weekend. | The camp was not Emily Anne’s dwelling because she did not own it and did not intend it as a permanent residence. | Occupancy/residence (not ownership or permanence) suffices; ownership allegation was surplusage. Conviction affirmed. |
| Consent / permission | Lack of consent is an affirmative defense; State need not prove absence of consent as element. | State failed to prove Bowman lacked express or implied permission to enter. | Consent is an affirmative defense, not an element; Bowman waived any consent defense at trial; sufficient evidence of nonconsensual entry. |
| Weight of the evidence | Jury resolved credibility; evidence supports burglary verdict. | Verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. | Appellate court will not reweigh; no abuse of discretion in denying new trial. |
| Jury instructions | Court’s instructions (agreed to by parties) were adequate. | Court erred by not giving instructions defining "dwelling house" and on knowledge/permission. | Claims waived for failure to request at trial; no reversible error. |
| Admission of other-acts (Rule 404(b)) — prior assault and substance use | Prior assaults and drug/alcohol use were admissible to show intent, motive, and to tell the complete story (res gestae); limiting instruction given for assault. | Admission of prior assaults and substance/alcohol evidence was prejudicial character evidence. | Prior assault evidence admissible to show intent; substance-use evidence admissible to complete the story and, if erroneous, harmless; defendant did not request limiting instruction for substance evidence. |
| Sentencing / crime-of-violence & parole eligibility | Burglary of a dwelling is an enumerated crime of violence; parole-eligibility rules apply as clarified by this Court in Fogleman; court should correct sentencing. | Trial judge misapplied §97‑3‑2(2) (50% rule) producing mistaken parole-eligibility and longer required served time. | Trial judge misstated law about parole eligibility; remand for resentencing consistent with Fogleman. |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. State, 58 So. 2d 664 (Miss. 1952) (ownership allegations in burglary indictment are surplusage when occupant is proved)
- Gillum v. State, 468 So. 2d 856 (Miss. 1985) (seasonal/intermittent use does not prevent residence from being a dwelling)
- Robinson v. State, 364 So. 2d 1131 (Miss. 1978) (burglary protects habitation and residents’ security, not property title)
- Young v. State, 952 So. 2d 1031 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (a furnished hunting cabin may be a dwelling)
- Campbell v. State, 883 So. 2d 115 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (hunting cabin can qualify as a dwelling)
- Stone v. State, 94 So. 3d 1078 (Miss. 2012) (prior threats/assaults admissible to show intent and negate mistake)
- Jones v. State, 154 So. 3d 872 (Miss. 2014) (background drug-use evidence may be admissible to tell a complete story and show motive/absence of mistake)
- Brown v. State, 483 So. 2d 328 (Miss. 1986) (State may present other-acts evidence to tell a rational, coherent story of the crime)
- Little v. State, 233 So. 3d 288 (Miss. 2017) (appellate standard: do not reweigh evidence or reassess witness credibility)