Carr v. State
2000 WL 1622874, 770 So.2d 1025 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To sustain a conviction for burglary of a dwelling, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the structure was being used as a residence at the time of the crime. A structure loses its character as a dwelling if its occupants have permanently ceased to live there with no intention of returning.
Facts:
- Gaston Woodson and his wife, the owners of a home in Greenville, had permanently moved to another county to build a new home.
- Their daughter had been staying in the Greenville house while working as a schoolteacher, but school had ended for the term.
- At the time of the incident, the daughter had been gone from the house for approximately one week.
- There was no evidence presented that either the Woodsons or their daughter intended to return to occupy the Greenville house as their residence.
- In the early morning hours of June 15, 1997, Officer Larry Miller observed Gregory Paul Carr riding a bicycle in an area where an auto burglary had recently occurred.
- Carr was holding a cordless telephone and had a flashlight visibly protruding from his pocket.
- When Officer Miller requested Carr to stop, Carr abandoned his bicycle and fled on foot.
- Officers pursued, captured, and conducted a search of Carr, discovering gold jewelry and a checkbook belonging to Gaston Woodson concealed in his clothing.
Procedural Posture:
- Gregory Paul Carr was indicted in Washington County for burglary of a dwelling.
- Carr filed a pre-trial motion to suppress the physical evidence seized from his person.
- The trial court held a hearing and denied the suppression motion in a summary order.
- Following a trial in the Circuit Court of Washington County, Carr was convicted of burglary of a dwelling.
- Carr, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals of Mississippi.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the State present sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the burglarized structure was a 'dwelling house' when the owners had permanently moved away and their daughter, who had been staying there, was also absent with no stated intention to return?
Opinions:
Majority - McMillin, C.J.
No. The State failed to prove an essential element of the crime, namely that the structure was a 'dwelling house' at the time of the break-in. For a structure to be considered a dwelling, it must be in present use as a residence. A temporary absence does not strip a house of its character as a dwelling, but only if the occupant intends to return. In this case, the evidence was uncontradicted that the owners had permanently moved away with no intention of returning, and there was no evidence to suggest their daughter, who had been temporarily staying there, had any intention of returning to reside in the house. Because the State failed to prove this essential element, the conviction cannot stand. Additionally, the court noted that while flight from an officer may justify an investigatory stop and detention, it does not, by itself, provide probable cause for a full search incident to arrest; thus, the evidence found on Carr's person should have been suppressed.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strict statutory definition of 'dwelling house' in Mississippi's burglary law, clarifying that the element requires proof of current habitation or a clear, manifested intent to return. It underscores the prosecution's burden to prove every element of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt, showing that a conviction can be overturned on appeal for a fundamental failure of proof, even if the issue was not perfectly preserved at trial. The case also provides a clear boundary on the 'search incident to arrest' doctrine, holding that flight from a lawful investigatory stop does not automatically create probable cause for a full, intrusive search.
