311 So.3d 697
Miss. Ct. App.2021Background
- Emily Benthall was charged with burglary of a dwelling after jewelry belonging to a disabled resident (Wedgeworth) was found missing following a family wedding on October 10, 2015.
- The bedroom air-conditioning unit was found shifted/angled in the window with a gap; a crushed pet carrier and bucket were found outside beneath the window; jewelry kept on a nightstand near the window was taken.
- Investigator Lilly interviewed Benthall; she signed a Miranda waiver and confessed in writing that she had been drinking, reached through the window, and took some jewelry; some stolen items were recovered from her.
- Benthall was indicted and tried July 18, 2016; she was not present at the start of trial, counsel moved for a continuance, and the court denied the motion as it found her absence willful; Benthall arrived late during trial and gave no explanation.
- A jury convicted Benthall of burglary; no timely post-trial motions or appeal were filed, but the circuit court later granted an out-of-time appeal; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of continuance / proceeding in absentia — whether absence was a waiver of right to be present | State: Court permissibly found Benthall willfully, voluntarily, and deliberately absent (she knew trial date; efforts to locate her failed) | Benthall: No evidence showed her absence was willful; she did not knowingly waive right to be present | Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion in denying continuance and proceeding in absentia |
| Sufficiency of evidence — whether the State proved the required "breaking" for burglary | State: Circumstantial evidence (moved AC, gap at window), Benthall’s confession that she reached through the window, and recovered jewelry suffice to show breaking and intent | Benthall: No direct evidence she used force or moved the air conditioner; reaching through window without proof of force is insufficient for burglary | Affirmed — viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational juror could find breaking and intent beyond a reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- Wales v. State, 73 So. 3d 1113 (Miss. 2011) (constitutional right to be present can be waived by willful, voluntary, deliberate absence)
- Jefferson v. State, 807 So. 2d 1222 (Miss. 2002) (defendant’s willful avoidance of trial can constitute waiver of right to be present)
- Robinson v. State, 66 So. 3d 198 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (proceeding in absentia upheld where defendant was aware of trial date and could not be located)
- Carroll v. State, 196 So. 3d 1054 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (personal notification in presence of counsel supports trying defendant in absence)
- McClain v. State, 625 So. 2d 774 (Miss. 1993) (appellate review accepts credible evidence consistent with guilt)
- Foster v. State, 281 So. 3d 229 (Miss. Ct. App. 2019) (‘‘breaking’’ may be satisfied by slight force necessary to enter)
- Ladd v. State, 87 So. 3d 1108 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (examples of slight force satisfying breaking)
- Martin v. State, 214 So. 3d 217 (Miss. 2017) (standard of review for sufficiency: view evidence in light most favorable to the State)
- McDaniel v. State, 290 So. 3d 1286 (Miss. Ct. App. 2020) (jury is factfinder; appellate court does not reweigh credibility)