Butler v. State, 45096

Decision Date23 December 1968
Docket NumberNo. 45096,45096
PartiesA. K. BUTLER v. STATE of Mississippi.
CourtMississippi Supreme Court

J. E. Smith, James R. Allen, Carthage, for appellant.

Joe T. Patterson, Atty. Gen., by Guy N. Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

ETHRIDGE, Chief Justice.

A. K. Butler, appellant, was convicted in the Circuit Court of Leake County of breaking and entering with intent to commit rape. We hold that the evidence supports the conviction, there was probable cause for Butler's arrest, and evidence of an extrajudicial identification of defendant was not error, in view of the totality of the circumstances and the time of the confrontation.

The jury accepted the State's evidence, to the following effect: Mrs. Callie Creel lived in a rural community with her eleven-year old granddaughter, Patsy Creel. On a Sunday night while she was reading to Patsy in the living room, they saw a man at a window and told him to go away. He left for a while. When they heard a noise outside, Patsy went to the back porch, got an ax, brought it inside and locked the doors. A man asked them to open the door, which they refused to do. He told them that if they did not let him in, he would break in and kill them both. Mrs. Creel and Patsy then went into the back bedroom and locked the door.

The man broke the glass on the front door, entered the house, and began trying to break down the bedroom door. Patsy held an unloaded shotgun, and Mrs. Creel held the ax. After the man began trying to break down the door, Mrs. Creel opened it. The light was on in the bedroom, and both of them had ample opportunity to see and observe the intruder. He was the defendant, a Negro man. Butler pointed at Patsy and stated that she was prettier than he had thought she was. He made an obscene statement to the effect that he wanted to have sexual relations with Patsy, and made a move toward her, whereupon Mrs. Creel hit him with the ax, Patsy struck him with the gun barrel, and they continued hitting him a number of times. Butler feel to the floor and was lying, unmoving, when they ran from the house to a neighbor's residence and notified the sheriff.

There was ample evidence to support the jury's finding that Butler was guilty of breaking and entering with intent to commit rape. He denied he was at the Creel house that night, asserting that he was at his own home. However, the jury found against defendant on this issue. Miss.Code 1942 Ann. § 2036 (1956). Criminal intent may be proved by circumstantial evidence, and may be inferred from the time and the manner in which the entry was made, and the conduct of the accused after the entry. A specific intent to rape is not only consistent with what defendant said that night, but also with his overt acts. The matter having been submitted to the jury on proper instructions, it was justified in so concluding. Fondren v. State, 253 Miss. 241, 175 So.2d 628 (1965); Newburn v. State, 205 So.2d 260 (Miss.1967).

Sheriff Russell Edwards went to the Creel house accompanied by Deputy Sheriff Watkins and Jack Adams. The officers found that the glass pane in the door was broken on the side next to the inside latch. They had been told that the women had killed a Negro man. However, when they arrived, they found only a large puddle of blood in the hallway, and followed bloodstains out the door to the front steps. Watkins learned that Butler lived in the neighborhood, so in the process of investigation they drove to his house, walked to the door, and saw blood on the side of the door next to the doorknob. The place was dark and quiet. The sheriff knocked several times, and receiving no answer, he kicked the door open and saw defendant sitting on a bench with blood running over his face, down his clothes and onto the floor. He acted as if he was 'drunk' and resisted arrest.

Appellant contends that there was no probable cause for Butler's arrest, but we do not agree. The sheriff was advised that the intruder was a Negro man. He investigated and found a pool of blood in the hall and trailed it for a short distance to the front of the house. In the process of investigation, the sheriff ascertained that Butler lived in the neighborhood, and when he went to his house, he saw blood on the door, which the jury was warranted in concluding was fresh blood. A felony had been committed, and all of the facts constituted probable cause for the sheriff to believe that the felon was in the house upon whose door was the blood. Miss. Code 1942 Ann. § 2470 (1956); see Leflore v. State, 197 Miss. 337, 22 So.2d 368 (1945).

Mrs. Creel and Patsy made positive and unequivocal in-court identifications of Butler as the offender. He had stalked that night from a dark room into a brightly lighted bedroom and they had ample opportunity during several minutes to see him and know his identity. The in-court identification was therefore positive and factually supported by the plenary opportunity of the two prosecuting witnesses to identify him. However, the State on the direct examinations of Mrs. Creel and Deputy Sheriff Watkins interrogated them about an extrajudicial identification of Butler, when Mrs. Creel and Patsy were brought to the hospital to see him. Appellant assigns this as error.

Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 296, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 1969, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199, 1203 (1967), held that the rules adopted in Wade and Gilbert, applying a 'per se...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • York v. State, 53048
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • May 12, 1982
    ...Scott v. State, 359 So.2d 1355 (Miss.1978). Under our holding in the cases of Porter v. State, 339 So.2d 564 (Miss.1976); Butler v. State, 217 So.2d 3 (Miss.1968); Short v. State, 211 So.2d (Miss.1968); and Anderson v. State, 171 Miss. 41, 156 So. 645 (1934), testimony pertaining to an out ......
  • Windless v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • October 1, 2015
    ...for the jury to find that Windless feloniously broke into and entered the victim's house with the intent to steal. See Butler v. State, 217 So.2d 3, 4 (Miss.1968) ("Criminal intent may be proved by circumstantial evidence, and may be inferred from the time and the manner in which the entry ......
  • State v. Ball, S-05-175.
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • March 3, 2006
    ...we ignore the testimony of Ball's employer that the officers told him they saw blood on the door of Ball's home. See, e.g., Butler v. State, 217 So.2d 3 (Miss.1968) (finding probable cause when officers found large puddle of blood at crime scene and after identifying possible suspect, found......
  • Williams v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • July 29, 1987
    ...the conduct of the accused after entry, intent is a state of mind seldom susceptible of direct proof absent a confession." Butler v. State, 217 So.2d 3, 5 (Miss.1968); Winston v. State, 479 So.2d 1093, 1095 (Miss.1985); King v. State, 342 So.2d 892 (Miss.1977); Thames v. State, 221 Miss. 57......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT