Henley v. State, 136 So. 3d 413

Henley appealed a conviction for possession of burglary tools after a jury found him guilty in the Neshoba County Circuit Court.
The incident occurred at Central Mississippi Recycling in Philadelphia, MS, where a gate had been forced open and the cable was found on the ground with cut marks.
Police observed Henley driving a vehicle with pliers, bolt cutters, screwdrivers, wrenches, a socket set, and a flashlight in his possession.
Henley claimed he was lost and merely turning around, not involved in burglary.
The trial court denied a directed verdict and a peremptory instruction; Henley declined to present evidence in defense.
The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed and rendered the conviction and sentence for lack of sufficient felonious-intent evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence showed felonious intent.	Henley argues tools lacked burglary-specific intent evidence.	State contends circumstances show intent to burglarize.	Insufficient evidence of felonious intent; peremptory instruction should have been granted.
Whether the trial court erred by denying a peremptory instruction.	State presented enough circumstantial evidence to infer intent.	Henley lacked proof of intent beyond ordinary possession.	Trial court erred; conviction reversed and rendered.

Pamphlet v. State, 271 So.2d 403 (Miss. 1972) (requiring evidence of felonious intent when only ordinary tools are possessed)
Fuqua v. State, 246 Miss. 191 (Miss. 1962) (tools may be ordinarily designed but still burglary tools; circumstantial evidence of intent admissible)
Peters v. State, 920 So.2d 1050 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (sufficient circumstantial link between tools and burglary in possession case)
McCollum v. State, 197 So.2d 252 (Miss. 1967) (intent shown by tools used or about to be used for burglary)
Salisbury v. State, 293 So.2d 434 (Miss. 1974) (possession of tools readily recognized as burglary tools supports inference of intent)