123 So. 3d 446
Miss.2013Background
- Victim Sue Hegwood returned to an attached garage and encountered Rodrique Watson approaching; he covered his face and threatened her, backed her into the garage, ran to her car, took her purse, and fled.\
- Watson was charged and convicted of burglary of a dwelling under Miss. Code Ann. § 97-17-23(1); sentenced to 25 years.\
- The State’s proposed jury instruction (S-2) defined “breaking” to include any act of force, however slight, and stated that passage through a door that "breaks the plane" satisfied the force element.\
- Defense objected to the "breaking the plane" language; trial court overruled and gave S-2.\
- Mississippi Supreme Court reviewed whether mere passage through an open door (breaking the plane) can satisfy the statutory "breaking" element and whether the jury instruction misstated the law.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Watson's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "breaking" for burglary is satisfied by passage that "breaks the plane" of a door | "Breaking the plane" (passage through a door) constitutes the required "force," so S-2 correctly instructed the jury | Mere walking/passage through an open or propped door is not an act of force and does not constitute "breaking" | The court held mere passage through an open door does not satisfy the statutory "breaking" requirement; the jury instruction was erroneous |
| Whether evidence here could support a constructive-breaking theory | N/A (State relied on actual "breaking the plane" language at trial) | Argued that facts could support constructive breaking (threat/forced entry) | Court noted constructive breaking remains a viable theory but a properly instructed jury must decide it; reversal and new trial required because S-2 misstated actual-breaking law |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. State, 90 So.3d 597 (Miss. 2012) (elements of burglary described)\
- Chaney v. State, 802 So.2d 113 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001) (stated passage through a door that "broke the plane" satisfied breaking)\
- Ladd v. State, 87 So.3d 1108 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (overruled Chaney; mere passage through an open door is not "breaking")\
- Christmas v. State, 10 So.3d 413 (Miss. 2009) (constructive breaking: forcing victim to permit entry can satisfy "breaking")\
- Templeton v. State, 725 So.2d 764 (Miss. 1998) (discusses constructive breaking doctrine)