Strait v. State

• Decision Date: 20 April 1900
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: JOSHUA STRAIT v. STATE OF MISSISSIPI

27 So. 617

77 Miss. 693

JOSHUA STRAIT v. STATE OF MISSISSIPI

Supreme Court of Mississippi

April 20, 1900

March 1900

FROM the circuit court of Lauderdale county, HON. GREEN B HUDDLESTON, Judge.

Strait was indicted for burglary, tried, convicted, and appealed to the supreme court. The opinion states the facts of the case.

Judgment reversed.

Alexander & Alexander and F. G. Lewis, for appellant.

On the uncontroverted facts appellant was not guilty of burglary. The authorities are uniform. There is not a discordant note. The cases are compiled and the law stated in 5 Am. & Eng Enc. L., 51, and in Conner v. People, 25 L. R. A., 341.

In the case at bar the breaking, the opening of the door with the key, was by Green Morton the decoy employed by Ethelridge & McBeath. The case is within the rule announced in People v. Collins, 53 Cal. 185. Many cases are compiled and the true rule stated, in a note to Thompson v. State, 81 Am. Dec., 365. The following cases are to the point: State v. Jansen, 22 Kan. 498; Com. v. Hollister, 157 Pa. 13; People v. McCord, 76 Mich. 200; Sanders v. People, 38 Mich. 218; Allen v. State, 40 Ala. 334.

Monroe McClurg, attorney-general, for the appellee.

It avails the appellant nothing that he did not unlock the door; his intent was to enter the office to steal, and if he let Morton have the key to escape himself the guilt of burglary, he was again deceived, not by Morton, but by himself, in that he gained admission by fraud, intending to steal, and is as guilty of the burglary as if he had knocked the door down to get in. That he furnished the key with which the door was opened, and that he entered, is not denied. His conduct at the moment he was seized, and having the key that unlocked the inner door, as well as his confession to McBeath and Culpepper, and his testimony with reference to Morton's several propositions to go in an office, show conclusively the intent with which he entered.

It is beyond question that the owners did not consent for their office to be burglarized, nor did they give any instructions to Morton, nor did the owners or Morton suggest the burglary. On the contrary, the owners pulled the windows down, closed the inner door to the safe and locked it, shut the outer door of the safe, and turned on the day combination and closed and locked the office doors and went home. Mr. Ethridge testified that he did not want his office burglarized. The only thing consented to by them was that the thief be caught, and when they understood that a scheme was on foot, about which they were not consulted, to catch the thief that night, they interposed no objection.

The correct doctrine is stated in Alexander v. State, 12 Texas, 540, as follows: "If the owner, in order to detect a number of men in the act of stealing, directs a servant to appear to encourage the design, and lead them on until the intent is completed, so long as he did not induce the original intent, but only provided for its discovery, after it was formed, the criminality of the thieves will not be destroyed, " citing 3 Chit. C. R. Law, 925; 4 Blk. Com., 230, note.

The weight of authority is unquestionably against the idea that wrongdoers may be excused because of anybody's permission to commit an offense. 1 Bish. Crim. Law (1892), secs. 258 and 262; People v. McDonnell, 80 Cal. (1889), 285 (293-5); People v. Hanselman, 76 Cal. (1888), 460; State v. Jansen, 22 Kan. (1889), 498 (504): Thompson v. State, 18 Ind. (1862), 386, 387; Rolland v. Com., 82 Pa. (1876), 306 (323); 1 McClain's Crim. Law., sec. 118; People v. McCord, 76 Mich. (1889), 200 (205); Love v. People, 160 Ill. (1896), 501 (502); United States v. Whittier, 5 Dill., 35; People v. Greening, 102 Cal. (1894) 384 (387); State v. Stickney, 53 Kan. (1894), 208 (310); Dodge v. Brittain, Meigs (Tenn.), 84; State v. Snell, 22 Neb. (1887), 481; People v. Morton, 4 Utah (1896), 407; Conner v. People, 18 Col., 373, reported with notes in 25 L. R. A., 341.

Argued orally by C. H. Alexander, for appellant, and by Monroe McClurg, attorney-general, for appellee.

OPINION

TERRAL, J.

Joshua Strait, a colored boy, was indicted in the circuit court of Lauderdale county for burglary in breaking and entering the law office of Etheridge & McBeath, with intent to steal.

Etheridge & McBeath were attorneys at law at Meridian, Mississippi, and having a belief that their office had been often entered by some person, and having a suspicion that the defendant was such person, one or both of the prosecutors requested Green Morton to trace up the matter. Strait was the office boy at a neighboring office, and had the key thereto of his master. Morton, in laying a snare for the defendant, pretended to him that he had left a bundle in the office of Etheridge & McBeath, and received from Strait the key used by him in his employment, and with it opened the office of Etheridge & McBeath and entered the same, and the defendant, Strait, also entered with him, and being immediately set upon, they were arrested, and the defendant, being indicted and convicted of burglary, appeals.

Green Morton, in endeavoring to entrap the defendant, and in getting from him the key with which he opened the office of Etheridge & McBeath, and in leading the defendant into the office, was acting at the...