Gross v. State
| Decision Date | 09 June 1941 |
| Docket Number | 34688. |
| Citation | 2 So.2d 818,191 Miss. 383 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | GROSS v. STATE. |
Maurice R. Black, of Flora, for appellant.
Greek L. Rice, Atty. Gen., and Geo. H. Ethridge, Asst. Atty. Gen for appellee.
The appellant was indicted, tried, and convicted in the Circuit Court of Hinds County, for burglarizing a storehouse located in the City of Jackson, the property of one R. W. Harper, and sentenced to a term of three years in the state penitentiary. From this conviction and sentence, he appeals.
The first contention is that the body of the crime was not proven aliunde the confession of the defendant. His contention in this respect is not free from doubt, but we have concluded that, under the proof in this record and the applicable rules of law, it is not well taken.
The building claimed to have been burglarized is a storeroom or warehouse used in connection with Harpers Foundry and Machine Shop in which is kept large quantities of babbitt and brass and other mill supplies used in the operation of the foundry. The building has five doors, and one large plate-glass window. The front door has a lock which automatically locks itself when closed. This may be unlocked from the outside. The other four doors are fastened from the inside by a piece of wood 2"'X4"' in size, placed behind uprights across the door, or by steel spikes in the ends of the doors. These doors have no locks and must be fastened and unfastened within the building.
The proof shows that three persons had keys which would unlock the front door-Mr. Harper, the owner, Mr. Wright, the manager of the supply department, and Charlie Brown, the negro janitor. On the night of the alleged burglary, Mr. Wright fastened all of the doors, and locked the front door, between eight and nine o'clock. The janitor opened the building about seven o'clock the next morning, but did not notice that any of the materials had disappeared. Mr. Wright arrived shortly after seven o'clock; and when he went into the wareroom, he discovered that some seven hundred pounds of babbitt and eight hundred pounds of brass and some other material had been taken from the building. All persons who had keys testified that they had no knowledge of how these materials were removed, and that they could not have been removed except through one or more of the doors. The proof also shows that there were no signs of any breaking or that any door had been opened.
The defendant made a confession in which he said that he and one Kendrick, the night watchman at the foundry, had agreed that they would steal brass and babbitt and other material from this warehouse, and that on the night in question they did do that; that Kendrick inserted a piece of iron behind one of the doors and lifted the bar from the uprights on the inside of the door, and thereby opened it. The confession then details how the materials were taken from the building and hauled away, and where they were placed. The process of opening the door would leave no indication thereon of the method of doing it. The night watchman was familiar with all of the surroundings, and by replacing the bar and coming through the front door and closing it, left no sign or indication of the manner of entering the building.
It is true, as held by a long line of cases in this State, that in felony cases the corpus delicti must be proved by evidence aliunde the confession of the accused. Stringfellow v State, 26 Miss. 157, 4 Cushm. 157, 59 Am.Dec. 247; Pitts v. State, 43 Miss. 472; Jenkins v State, 98 Miss. 717, 54 So. 158; Rayborn v State, 115 Miss. 730, 76 So. 639; Patterson v. State, 127 Miss. 256, 90 So. 2; Williams v. State, 129 Miss. 469, 92 So. 584; Garner
v. State, 132 Miss. 815, 96 So. 743; Crabb et al. v. State, 152 Miss. 602, 120 So. 569; Pope v. State, 158 Miss. 794, 131 So. 264; Perkins v. State, 160 Miss. 720, 135 So. 357; Gipson v. State, 162 Miss. 480, 139 So. 868; Whittaker v. State, 169 Miss. 517, 142 So. 474; Yates v. State, 172 Miss. 581, 161 So. 147; Brooks v. State, 178 Miss. 575, 173 So. 409.
But it is also true that where the confession has been introduced, it may be considered with the other evidence to establish the corpus delicti. See cases cited above and also Keeton v. State, 175 Miss. 631, 647, 167 So. 68.
It is also the rule that: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fondren v. State
...turning of a knob, a slight push to further open the door, the raising of a latch--these and like acts are sufficient.' Gross v. State, 191 Miss. 383, 2 So.2d 818 (1941). See also Nichols v. State, 207 Miss. 291, 42 So.2d 201 In 12 C.J.S. Burglary section 3 (1938) at 670, it is said: 'There......
-
Davis v. State
...667 (Miss.1969); Newburn v. State, 205 So.2d 260 (Miss.1967): Fondren v. State, 253 Miss. 241, 175 So.2d 628 (1965); Gross v. State, 191 Miss. 383, 2 So.2d 818 (1941). Davis' challenge is that since he as a co-owner could enter the building, he could also consent to Brown's entering the bui......
-
Goldman v. State
...(1957) (burglary of warehouse); Andrews v. State, 220 Miss. 28, 31, 70 So.2d 40, 41, (1954) (burglary of warehouse); Gross v. State, 191 Miss. 383, 2 So.2d 818, 819 (1941) (burglary of storehouse); Colburn v. State, 175 Miss. 704, 166 So. 920, 921 (1936) (burglary of storehouse). All of the......
-
Ladd v. State
...to further open a door, or raising a latch.” Davis v. State, 910 So.2d 1228, 1231 (¶ 8) (Miss.Ct.App.2005) (citing Gross v. State, 191 Miss. 383, 391, 2 So.2d 818, 820 (1941)). “To constitute burglary, a ‘structure must generally be closed. Otherwise the entry is merely a trespass, not a “b......