248 So. 3d 793
Miss.2018Background
- On Oct. 29, 2015, Jerry McGill found the door of a parked, inoperable Volvo belonging to Bobby Brewer open near Brewer’s shop; McGill saw a man (later identified as Charles Naylor) inside the vehicle.
- McGill photographed the man, asked for identification, and the man walked away; McGill called police and followed him on foot while staying in his truck.
- Officers arrested Naylor about a quarter mile away; police recovered from Naylor a GPS unit and Brewer’s automobile insurance card bearing Brewer’s name.
- Brewer testified the Volvo had been locked and inoperable at the time of the incident and that his insurance card had been in the glove box.
- Naylor was convicted of burglary of an automobile and, as an habitual offender, sentenced to seven years without parole; he appealed claiming insufficient evidence to prove a breaking.
Issues
| Issue | Naylor's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence sufficed to prove burglary (breaking + intent to steal) | Naylor argued he merely found the Volvo already open and at most committed trespass/petit larceny, so no breaking was proven | The State argued McGill’s observations, proximity of arrest, possession of Brewer’s property, and Brewer’s testimony that the car had been locked support an inference of burglary | Affirmed: a rational jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that a breaking occurred and Naylor participated in the burglary |
| Whether possession of recently stolen property can support inference of participation | Naylor implied possession alone was insufficient | State relied on Shields framework to infer participation from possession plus surrounding circumstances | Held possession of Brewer’s GPS and insurance card, temporal proximity, inability to explain possession, and other facts supported the inference |
| Whether merely walking through an open door can be a ‘breaking’ | Naylor relied on cases holding passage through an already-open entry is not a breaking | State distinguished those cases by Brewer’s testimony that the vehicle had been locked | Held that because owner testified it was locked, jury could find a breaking occurred |
| Whether verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence | Naylor argued verdict contrary to weight | State pointed to eyewitness testimony, recovered property, and circumstances of arrest | Held no reversible weight-of-evidence error; verdict not an unconscionable injustice |
Key Cases Cited
- Ambrose v. State, 133 So. 3d 786 (Miss. 2013) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- McClain v. State, 625 So. 2d 774 (Miss. 1993) (give prosecution favorable inferences on sufficiency review)
- Shelton v. State, 214 So. 3d 250 (Miss. 2017) (sufficiency test when jurors might differ)
- Templeton v. State, 725 So. 2d 764 (Miss. 1998) (definition of actual breaking)
- Smith v. State, 499 So. 2d 750 (Miss. 1986) (quoted definition of breaking)
- Shields v. State, 702 So. 2d 380 (Miss. 1997) (framework for inferring participation from possession of recently stolen property)
- Ladd v. State, 87 So. 3d 1108 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (mere entry through an already-open door is not a breaking)
- Watson v. State, 123 So. 3d 446 (Miss. 2013) (approving Ladd on open-door breaking issue)