Jackson v. State, 51145
| Decision Date | 26 March 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 51145,51145 |
| Citation | 381 So.2d 1040 |
| Parties | Doyle Gene JACKSON v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Robert E. Farish, Biloxi, for appellant.
A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Robert D. Findley, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
Before PATTERSON, C. J., and BROOM and COFER, JJ.
Doyle Jackson was convicted in the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial District of Harrison County of burglary and sentenced as an habitual offender under Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-19-81 (Supp.1979). He appeals and argues (1) the state adduced insufficient evidence to establish guilt, (2) the court erred in granting an instruction relating to the defense of intoxication, and (3) the court erred in considering a prior conviction, the sentence for which was suspended, for purposes of sentencing as an habitual offender.
Early on the morning of October 21, 1977, Jackson broke the window of a Biloxi drugstore with a brick and entered the premises. Although he argues that his powers of perception were so tattered through the use of drugs that he was powerless to entertain the requisite specific intent to steal, he nevertheless was able to locate the drugs in the store and to take a large quantity of sodium seconal, a popularly-abused barbiturate. In response to his argument of mental incapacity to form a specific intent, the court granted the following instruction:
The Court instructs the Jury that before you may find the Defendant, Doyle Gene Jackson, guilty of Burglary, you must find beyond a reasonable doubt that he had the specific intent to commit such a crime. Therefore, if you find that the Defendant was under the influence of drugs at the time it is alleged that he broke and entered Eckerd's Drug Store to the extent that he was unable to form the specific intent to burglarize said store, and that he could not then distinguish right from wrong, then you cannot find him guilty of Burglary.
Provided, however, if you find that the Defendant, Doyle Gene Jackson, formed the specific intent to commit the burglary in question before he came under the influence of drugs to the extent that he was unable to have the specific intent to commit the crime of burglary, if you do so find, and then voluntarily came under the influence of drugs, his use of drugs is no defense.
We observe that Jackson's in-court admission plainly suffices to establish his guilt of burglary beyond any reasonable doubt. As for his defense of intoxication, the court's instruction, while not entirely free from ambiguity, phrases the relevant law more favorably to the accused than required by our decisions.
In McDaniel v. State, 356 So.2d 1151 (Miss.1978), we held:
. . . (V)oluntary intoxication by a defendant should not be permitted as a defense if . . . when sober, (he) is capable of distinguishing between right and wrong, and . . . voluntarily deprives himself of reason by intoxication, and commits an offense while in that condition. . . .
Presently, we find the evidence insufficient to demonstrate inability of Jackson to distinguish between right and wrong before voluntarily depriving himself of reason by becoming intoxicated prior to committing the burglary. In any event, Jackson was not prejudiced by an instruction more favorable to him than required by law. We therefore reject this assignment of error.
The trial court held a distinct hearing following the jury's guilty verdict on the underlying burglary offense to determine Jackson's status as an habitual offender for sentencing purposes. Jackson's prior convictions included burglary (sentence of eighteen months) and burglary/larceny and possession of controlled substance (sentence of three years on each count to run concurrently; probation granted with suspension of the three-year sentences). The two burglary convictions arose out of distinct incidents in Alabama. Our statute, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weaver v. State, 55901
...him a three year sentence. That the Calhoun County burglary sentence may have been suspended profits Weaver nothing. In Jackson v. State, 381 So.2d 1040, 1042 (Miss.1980) we disposed of this point, We reject this argument, because we think the statutory intention is satisfied where, as here......
-
Evans v. State
...is not necessarily required. Elledge v. State, 346 So.2d 998 (Fla.1977); Hargrave v. State, 366 So.2d 1 (Fla.1978). . Jackson v. State, 381 So.2d 1040 (Miss.1980), involved an appeal from an enhanced sentence where it was contended that the statute required that a defendant actually serve t......
-
Hewlett v. State
... ... Bell, Oxford, for appellant ... Michael C. Moore, Atty. Gen., Deirdre McCrory, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee ... Before ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., and ROBERTSON and SULLIVAN, JJ ... SULLIVAN, Justice, for the ... ...
-
Norris v. State
...robs, or murders, he is responsible and he may be convicted and sentenced for the crime. 445 So.2d at 231. Further, in Jackson v. State, 381 So.2d 1040 (Miss.1980), we did not find that it was error for the court to give a McDaniel rule As Justice Hawkins has said, "the horns were extended ......