Mason v. State, 49597
| Decision Date | 30 March 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 49597,49597 |
| Citation | 344 So.2d 144 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | Linda MASON v. STATE of Mississippi. |
W. E. Gore, Jr., L. Breland Hilburn, Jackson, Paul G. Swartzfager, Laurel, L. B. Porter, Union, for appellant.
A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Catherine Walker Underwood, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
Before INZER, SUGG and LEE, JJ.
SUGG, Justice for the Court.
Defendant, Linda Mason was indicted, tried and convicted in the Circuit Court of Newton County of the crime of burglary under Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-17-19 (1972). Specifically, defendant was convicted of burglary arising out of breaking and entering a dwelling and committing the crime of malicious mischief therein. Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-17-67 (1972). Defendant was sentenced to serve a two year prison term and appeals her conviction to this Court.
Defendant's conviction resulted from an incident that occurred on January 13, 1976, at Mr. and Mrs. Harold Mason's home located south of Newton. At the time of the incident the defendant was married to the Masons' oldest son. Mr. and Mrs. Mason left their home for work around 7:00 a.m. on the morning of January 13. Both the front and back doors to the house were closed but not locked. Upon returning home that afternoon, the couple discovered that a liquid, ultimately determined to be acid, had been poured over much of the furniture and clothing throughout the house. The acid caused the surfaces it came into contact with to deteriorate.
The sheriff was immediately called to the scene and following an inspection of the premises, the sheriff, along with the defendant's husband, drove to a cafe in Newton where the defendant was working. After a brief discussion between the defendant and her husband, the defendant announced that she wanted to talk to the sheriff concerning the incident at the Masons' home. The sheriff advised the defendant of her constitutional rights, following which the defendant admitted that she had poured acid inside the Masons' home.
Although several issues are raised by the defendant, only one merits discussion. The defendant does not seriously contend that she did not commit the offense of pouring acid on the Masons' furnishings and clothing; however, she argues that she is not guilty of burglary because she had the consent of the Masons to enter their home. Defendant argues that because breaking and entering is a necessary element of the crime of burglary, entering a dwelling with the owner's consent negates breaking and entering. The defendant therefore concludes that she is not guilty of burglary because she had the Masons' consent to enter the house at the time the offense was committed.
The crime of burglary consists of two essential elements: (1) burglarious breaking and entering of a dwelling or building, and (2) the intent to commit a crime therein. Newburn v. State, 205 So.2d 260, 265 (Miss.1967). In order to sustain a burglary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mack v. State
...a dwelling, and (2) the felonious intent to commit some crime therein. Moore v. State, 344 So.2d 731, 735 (Miss.1977); Mason v. State, 344 So.2d 144, 145-46 (Miss.1977). In Newburn v. State, 205 So.2d 260, 265 (Miss.1967) it is stated that the act of opening a closed entrance to a dwelling ......
-
Davis v. State
...any act of force, however slight, necessary to be used in entering a building is sufficient to constitute a "breaking." Mason v. State, 344 So.2d 144 (Miss.1977); Branning v. State, 222 So.2d 667 (Miss.1969); Newburn v. State, 205 So.2d 260 (Miss.1967): Fondren v. State, 253 Miss. 241, 175 ......
-
Spiers v. State
...... has not made an unlawful entry. Davis v. State , 611. So.2d 906, 911 (Miss. 1992) (quoting Mason v. State ,. 344 So.2d 144, 146 (Miss. 1977)). And "a properly worded. [affirmative defense] jury instruction may [be] the. ......
-
Sandefer v. State
...money from a double-locked room in Dr. Taylor's house. ¶ 23. The dissent cites Davis v. State, 611 So.2d 906 (Miss.1992), Mason v. State, 344 So.2d 144, 145 (Miss.1977), Holderfield v. State, 215 Miss. 564, 61 So.2d 385 (1952), and Mitchell v. State, 720 So.2d 492 (Miss. Ct.App.1998) for th......