IN T H E C O U R T O F A P P E A L S O F T H E S T A T E O F M IS S IS S IP P I

N O . 2 0 1 7 -K A -0 1 4 6 6 -C O A

J A M E S F O S T E R A /K

/A J A M E S H . F O S T E R A / K /A J A M E S F O S T E R J R

. A /K /A J A M E S H E N R Y (J IM M Y ) F O S T E R A P P E L L A N T

v .

S T A T E O F M IS S IS S IP P I A P P E L L E E

D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 1 0 /1 8 /2 0 1 7 T R IA L JU D G E : H O N

. JE F F WE IL L S R

. C O U R T F R O M WH IC H A P P E A L E D : H IN D S C O U N T Y C IR C U IT C O U R T , F IR S T JU D IC IA L D I S T R IC T A T T O R N E Y S F O R

A P P E L L A N T : O F F IC E O F S T A T E P U B L IC D E F E N D E R

B Y : JU S T IN T A Y L O R

C O O K G E O R G E T . H O L M E S A T T O R N E Y F O R

A P P E L L E E : O F F IC E O F T H E A T T O R N E Y G E N E R A L B Y : K A Y L Y N H A V R IL L A M cC L IN T O N D I S T R IC T A T T O R

N E Y : R O B E R T S H U L E R S M IT H N A T U R E O F T H E C A S E : C R IM IN A L - F E L O N Y D I S P O S IT IO N : R E V E R S E D A N D R E N D E R E D - 0 3 /2 6 /2 0 1 9 M O T IO N F O R

R E H E A R IN G F IL E D : M A N D A T E IS S U E D :

B E F O R E B A R N E S , C .J ., G R E E N L E E A N D T IN D E L L , J J

.

B A R N E S , C

. J

. , F O R T H E C O U R T :
¶1

. A H in d s C o u n ty j u r y f o u n d Jam es F o ster g u i lty o f b u rg l ary o f a b u sin ess. F o ster w as

sen ten ced to sev en y ears in th e c u sto d y o f th e D ep artm en t o f C o r rectio n s as a h ab itu al

o f f en d er u n d er M ississip p i C o d e A n n o tated sectio n 9 9

- 1 9 -8 1 (R ev

. 2 0 1 5 ), w ith o u t
elig ib ility f

o r p a ro le. F o s ter f

iled a m o tio n f

o r a j u d g m e n t n o tw ith stan d in g th e v erd ict

(JN O V ) o r, in th e altern ativ e, a n ew trial, arg u in g th a t th e S tate f ailed to p ro v e a b reak i n go ccu rred
, w h ich is a req u ired e lem en t o f b u sin ess b u rg l ary

. 1 F o ster tim ely f iled a n o tice o f

ap p eal. F o ster arg u es t h e ev id en c e i s in su f f icien t to su p p o rt a co n v ictio n f o r b u rg lary o f a

b u sin ess, an d t h e p ro p o s ed j u ry i n stru ctio n f o r th e lesser-in clu d e d o f

f en se o f tresp assin g

sh o u ld h av e b e en g iv en

. B e cau se th e S tate p resen ted i n s u f f icien t e v i d en ce f

o r th e elem en t

o f “b r eak in g ,” w e rev erse an d ren d er F o ster’s co n v ictio n f o r b u rg l ary

o f a b u sin e ss.

F A C T S

¶2

. O n D e c e mb e r 2 1
, 2 0 1 3
, O f f icer D e sm o n d B arn ey w ith t h e J a c k s o n P o l i c e

D e p a rtm e n t (JP D ) w as d isp atch ed to a h o u se o n 1 0 0 8 B r o o k l e y S treet in Jack so n ,

M ississip p i, d u e to a su sp ected b u rg lary

. O f f icer B arn ey w as ad v ised to b e o n th e lo o k o u t

f o r tw o w h ite m ales an d o n e w h ite f em ale in a b lu e F o rd F

- 1 5 0 p ick u p tru c k . E n ro u te to

th e scen e , O f

f icer B arn e y p assed a v eh icle m a tch in g th e d escrip tio n trav elin g a w ay f ro m th e

scen e o n n earb y M c D o w ell R o ad . O f f icer B arn ey

co n d u c ted a traf

f ic sto p o n th e v eh icle,

w h ich w as o ccu p ied b y t h ree in d iv id u als m atch in g th e su sp ects’ d escrip tio n s. A sto v e an d

a d ish w ash er w ere i n th e b ack o f th e tru c k

. F o s t e r w as o n e o f t h e o ccu p an t s o f th e tru ck

.

A f ter arrestin g th e su sp ects, O f f icer B a rn ey

n ev e r w en t to in v estig ate th e d w ellin g

. ¶3

. T h e t h ree s u sp ects w ere tran sp o rted t o “city h o ld in g ” a n d in terv i ew ed b y D etectiv e

V i rg il Jarm an w ith th e p ro p e rty -crim es d iv isio n o f JP D

. F o ster to ld D etectiv e Jarm an t h at

h e h ad p rev io u sly liv ed at th e h o u se y ears ag o

. H e w a s w alk i n g aro u n d th e lo catio n w h en

h e n o t iced th e b ack d o o r w a s o p en

. H e w a lk ed i n t o t h e h o u se, t o o k th e d ish w ash er an d

1 T h e reco rd d o es n o t co n tain an o rd e r d e n y in g th is m o tio n , b u t M ississip p i R u le o f C r im i n al P r o ced u re 2 5 .3 p ro v id es th at p o st-trial m o tio n s p e n d i n g o v er th irty d ay s are d eem ed d en ied

.
2sto v e , an d called h is g irlf rien d ’s so n to c o m e p ick h im u p

. T h ey cam e to th e l o catio n , lo ad ed

th e ap p l ian c e s i n to th e tru ck
, an d d ro v e o f f b ef o re th ey w ere sto p p e d an d arrested b y law

en f o r cem en t. F o ster e x p l a in e d th at th ey h ad b een try in g to m ak e so m e m o n ey b y
“scrap p i n g ”—

p ick in g u p i tem s a n d sellin g th e scrap m etal f o r m o n ey

. D u rin g th e in terv iew
,

F o ster ad m itted to w ro n g f u lly tak in g th e i t e ms , b u t h e ex p lain e d th at o n ce h e g o t to th e

d w e llin g “th in g s k in d o f g o t o u t o f co n tro l.” D u rin g h is in v estig atio n , D etectiv e Jarm an

n ev er w en t to th e h o u se.
¶4

. Jo h n K etch u m , a s elf

- em p lo y ed real-estate b ro k er, testif ied th a t in D ecem

b er 2 0 1 3
,

th e p ro p erty w as an u n o ccu p ied d w ellin g o w n ed b y h i s f o rm e r clien t, T ru e W h o l e s a l e

H o u s es o f M ississip p i. K etch u m w as h ired b y th e co m p a n y ’ s o w n er, M i k e H an k s, to tak e

o v er th e p ro p erty ’s m an ag em en t, ev alu a te th e r en t al p ro p erty , an d o b tain q u o tes to ren o v ate

it. T h e p ro p erty w o u l d b e o f f ered as a r en t al h o m e “o n ce i t w as o p eratio n al.” K etch u m

testif i ed t h e b u ild in g w as n o t “a p lace o f b u sin ess ” b u t i n stead a sin g le-f am ily resid en tial

d w ellin g

. B u t D etectiv e J arm an ex p lain ed th at th e h o u se w a s co n sid ered a b u s in ess f o r

p u rp o ses o f th e s e c h a r g e s b e c a u se “an y tim e y o u h av e a h o u se f o r ren t , it’s listed as a

b u sin ess” sin ce th e p ro p erty m a k es m o n ey f o r t h e o w n er th ro u g h ren t. K etch u m d id n o t

k n o w th e last tim e th e h o u s e h a d b e en in h ab ited

. U ltim ately
, th e p ro p erty w as n ev er

ren o v ated b ecau se H an k s n e v er accep ted th e q u o tes to ren o v ate it.

¶5

. D u rin g K etch u m ’ s ex am in atio n , tw o p h o to g rap h s o f th e d w elli n g ’ s k i t c h e n w ere

en tered in to ev id en ce. K etch u m testif ied h e h a d t a k en th ese p h o to g rap h s so m e t im e b etw een

S ep tem b er t h ro u g h N o v em

b er 2 0 1 3 , b ef

o re th e in cid en t . T h e p h o to g rap h lab eled E x h ib it

3T w o s h o w s b o t h a sto rm d o o r a n d a s o l i d metal o r w o o d en b a ck d o o r. T h e sto r m d o o r is

sh u t, b u t th e so l id b ack d o o r i s o p en

. T h e o th er p h o to g rap h d ep icts th e sto v e an d

d ish w ash er in th e k itch en . K etch u m d id n o t k n o w if

th e ap p lian ces w ere o p eratio n al.

¶6

. A f ter th e S tate r e sted
, F o ster m o v ed f o r a d irected v erd ict, c laim i n g th e S tate h ad n o t

p ro v en th e resid en c e w as a p lace o f b u sin e ss. 2 T h e co u rt o v erru led F o ster’s m o tio n

. Ju ry

in stru ctio n s o n th e e lem en ts o f p e tit larcen y an d t resp a ss w e re d en i ed

. U ltim ately
, th e j u ry

f o u n d F o ster g u ilty

o f th e crim e ch arg ed

.

A N A L Y S IS

¶7

. F o ster arg u es th at th e t rial co u rt e rred in d en y in g h is m o t io n f o r a JN O V b e cau se th e

ev id e n c e is i n su f

f icien t to su p p o rt a co n v ictio n f o r b u rg lary o f a b u sin ess. A lth o u g h F o ster

ch allen g es th e su f

f icien cy o f th e ev id en ce f

o r sev eral o f th e crim e’s elem en ts, w e f in d m erit

to F o ster’s arg u m en t reg a r d i n g t h e “b reak i n g ” elem en t

. F o ster claim s th a t h e e n tered th e

h o u se th ro u g h a n o p en d o o r , an d th eref o re th is actio n d o e s n o t co n stitu te “b reak in g ” as it

p ertain s to th e crim e o f

b u rg lary . We ag ree.
¶8

. “T h e su f

f i cien cy o f th e ev id en ce is c h a llen g ed w i th a m o tio n f o r a d irected v erd ict,

a r eq u est f

o r a p e rem

p to ry in s t ru ctio n , o r a m o t io n f o r j u d g m en t n o tw ith stan d in g th e v erd ict

(JN O V ).” P a ce v. S ta te , 2 4 2 S o

. 3 d 1 0 7 , 1 1 7 (¶2 4 ) ( M iss. 2 0 1 8 ). “ [ T ] h e relev an t q u estio n

is w h eth er, af

ter v iew in g t h e ev id en ce in t h e l ig h t m o st f av o rab le to t h e p r o s e c u t i o n , an y

ratio n al trier o f f

act co u ld h a v e f

o u n d th e essen tial e l em en ts o f t h e crim e b ey o n d a

reaso n ab le d o u b t. ” Wa rren v. S ta te , 1 8 7 S o

. 3 d 6 1 6
, 6 2 7 (¶3 0 ) (M iss. 2 0 1 6 ). “T h e

2 A t th is tim e, d e f

en se co u n sel d id n o t arg u e th ere w as in su f f icien t ev id en ce f

o r th e “b reak in g ” elem en t.

4[ ap p e llate co u r t ] m u st rev erse an d ren d er if th e f acts an d in f

eren ces ‘p o i n t in f

av o r o f th e

d ef en d a n t o n an y e lem en t o f th e o f f en s e w ith s u f

f icien t f o rce th at reaso n ab le m en co u ld n o t

h av e f o u n d b ey o n d a reaso n ab le d o u b t th at t h e d ef en d an t w as g u ilty

. ’ ” I

d

. ( q u o t i n g

E d w a rd s v. S ta te , 4 6 9 S o . 2 d 6 8 , 7 0 (M iss. 1 9 8 5 )).

¶9

. T h e crim e o f

b u rg lary o f a b u sin ess is d escrib ed as f o llo w s:

E v ery p erso n w h o sh a ll b e co n v i cted o f b r eak in g an d en terin g , in th e d ay o r

n ig h t, an y sh o p , sto re, b o o th
, ten t, w areh o u se, o r o th er b u ild in g o r p r iv ate

r o o m o r o f

f ice th erein
, w ater v essel, co m m ercial o r p leasu r e c r af t, sh ip
, s team b o at, f latb o at, r ailro ad car, au to m o b ile, t ru ck o r trailer in w h ich an y g o o d s, m erch an d i se, eq u ip m en t o r v a lu ab le th i n g sh all b e k e p t f o r u se, sale, d ep o sit, o r tran sp o r

t atio n , w ith in ten t to s teal th erein
, o r to co m m it an y f elo n y , o r w h o sh a ll b e co n v icted o f b reak in g an d en terin g in th e d ay o r n ig h t tim e,

an y b u ild in g w ith in th e cu rtilag e o f a d w ellin g h o u se , n o t j o i n ed to , im m e d iately co n n ect e d w i t h o r f o rm i n g a p art th ereo f

, sh a ll b e g u ilty o f b u rg lary , an d im

p riso n ed in th e p en iten tiary n o t m o re th an sev en (7 ) y ears.

M iss. C o d e A n n

. § 9 7 -1 7 -3 3 (R ev

. 2 0 1 4 ). T h e j u ry w as in stru cted o n th e elem en ts o f

b u rg lary o f

a b u sin ess. T h e j u ry w as n o t g iv en a d ef in itio n o f th e term “b reak in g .”

¶1 0

. T h e S tate d id n o t m eet its b u rd en o f p ro o f t o sh o w F o ster b ro k e in to th e d w ellin g

b ey o n d a reaso n ab le d o u b t. A l t h o u g h F o ster d id n o t testif y a t trial, D etectiv e Jarm an

testif i ed th at F o ster to ld h im d u rin g h i s in terv iew th a t h e “w as w a lk in g aro u n d th e lo catio n

w h en [ F o ster] n o ticed th e b ack d o o r w as o p en .” T h e o n ly o th er ev id en ce p ertain in g to th e

“b reak in g ” e lem en t w as th e in tro d u ctio n o f E x h i b i t T w o , th e p h o to g rap h o f th e b ack d o o r,

o f f ered d u rin g K etch u m ’s testim o n y

. T h e p h o to g rap h
, tak e n f ro m in s id e th e k itch en ,
sh o w ed th e so lid m etal o r w o o d en b ack d o o r o p en ; h o w e v e r, th ere w a s also a sto rm d o o r,

w h ich w a s clo s ed

. K e tch u m p ro v id ed th i s an d an o th e r p h o to g r ap h o f th e k itch en to th e

S tate, b u t n o t u n til th e m o rn i n g o f th e trial. D ef en se co u n sel o b

j e c ted b ecau se th ere w as n o

5in d icatio n o f w h en th e p h o to g rap h s w ere tak en

. T h e S tate rep resen t ed th at K etch u m to o k

th e p h o t o g rap h s so m e tim e b etw een S ep tem b er 1 4 an d N o v em

b er 9
, 2 0 1 3
, w h i c h is p rio r

to th e d a te ch arg ed in th e in d ictm en t o f D ecem b er 2 1 , 2 0 1 3

. D ef

en se co u n sel arg u ed t h at

th e p h o to g rap h s m a y n o t accu rately r e f lect th e p ro p erty

o n th at d a te. T h e S tate resp o n d ed

th at K etch u m w o u l d o n l y testif y as to th e c o n d itio n o f th e p ro p erty b ef o re th is d ate as a

“ref eren ce p o i n t” f

o r t h e j u ry

. T h e trial co u rt f o u n d th e p h o to g rap h s relev an t f o r th is

p u rp o se o n ly an d o v erru led F o ster’s o b j ectio n

. T h e S tate ad m itted th ere w o u ld b e n o

ev id e n c e o f

f ered at trial sh o w in g h o w t h e p r o p erty , in clu d in g th e b ack d o o r, actu ally

ap p eared o n D ecem

b er 2 1

. ¶1 1

. T h is C o u rt h as d iscu ssed w h at co n s titu t es t h e e l e m en t o f “b reak in g ” f o r b u rg lary

r e l a t e d c rim es in L a d

d v. S ta te , 8 7 S o

. 3 d 1 1 0 8
, 1 1 1 4 (¶1 9 ) ( M i ss. C t

. A p p

. 2 0 1 2 ). “ I t i s

w e l l

- estab lish ed law in M ississip p i th at a b r eak i n g is c o n d u cted b y an a c t o f f o rce,

reg ard less o f h o w slig h t, n ecessary to b e u sed in en terin g a b u i ld in g , su c h as tu rn in g a k n o b
,

a slig h t p u sh to f

u rth er o p en a d o o r, o r raisin g a latch .” Id

. (q u o tin g D a vis v

. S ta te , 9 1 0 S o

.

2 d 1 2 2 8
, 1 2 3 1 (¶8 ) (M iss. C t. A p p

. 2 0 0 5 )). “T o c o n stitu te b u rg lary
, a ‘ stru ctu re m u st

g en erally b e clo sed

. O t h e r w ise th e en try is m erely a t resp ass, n o t a b reak in g an d a

b u rg lary

. ’” Id

. (in tern al q u o tatio n m ark s o m itted ) (q u o tin g H a rris v. S ta te , 6 8 S o

. 3 d 7 5 4
,

7 5 7 (¶1 1 ) (M iss. C t

. A p p

. 2 0 1 1 ) ). In L a d d
, t h e d ef en d a n t’s act o f w alk in g th ro u g h an o p en

g arag e d o o r d id n o t satisf y t h e “ b reak in g ” elem en t o f b u r g lar y o f a d w ellin g

. Id

. at 1 1 1 5

(¶2 3 )

. ¶1 2

. H e re, th ere w as n o ev id e n c e o f th e co n d itio n o f th e b ack d o o r o n t h e d ate o f th e

6in cid en t. I n f act, n o n e o f th e JP D p o lice o f f icers in v estig atin g th e in cid en t ev en w en t to th e

d w ellin g . T h e o n ly

p h o to g rap h o f

th e d o o r sh o w s t h e so lid d o o r o p en an d th e sto rm d o o r

clo sed
, b u t F o ster claim ed h e en tered th e d w ellin g th r o u g h an o p e n d o o r. T h ere is n o p ro o f

th e sto rm d o o r w as ev en th ere o n th e d ate o f th e i n cid en t— it co u l d h av e b een r em o v ed
, o r

it co u l d h av e b een o p en . We co n clu d e th e S tate d id n o t p r o v e b e y o n d a reaso n a b le d o u b t

th at F o ster actu ally o p en ed eith er t h e sto rm d o o r o r th e so lid d o o r i n o r d er to satisf y th e

elem en t o f

“b reak in g .”

¶1 3

. Wh ile th e j u ry co u l d h av e co n sid ered F o s t er’s en try in to th e d w e llin g a tresp ass, as

w a s d o n e in L a d

d
, th e trial co u rt d en ied F o ster’s j u ry in stru c tio n o n th is lesser-in clu d ed

o f f en se. A lth o u g h F o ster raises th is d e n ial as an erro r, b ecau se o u r d ecisio n n o w b en ef its

F o ster, w e d eclin e to a d d ress th e issu e. T h e S tate h as n o t m ad e an y arg u m en t t h at if n o

“b reak in g ” elem en t is f

o u n d th at th e case sh o u ld b e rem an d ed f o r sen ten cin g o n th e crim e

o f tresp ass.
¶1 4

. A c co rd in g ly , w e rev e rse an d ren d er F o ster’s co n v ictio n f o r b u rg lary

o f a b u sin ess.
¶1 5

. R E VE R S E D A N D R E N D E R E D

.

J

. W IL S O N , P .J ., G R E E N L E E , W E S T B R O O K S , T IN D E L L , M cD O N A L D , M c C A R T Y A N D C

. W IL S O N , J J ., C O N C U R

. L A W R E N C E , J

. , S P E C IA L L Y C O N C U R S W I T H S E P A R A T E W R IT T E N O P IN I O N , J O IN E D B Y G R E E N L E E , W E S T B R O O K S , T IN D E L L , M cD O N A L D A N D M cC A R T Y , J J

. C A R L T O N , P .J ., C O N C U R S IN R E S U L T O N L Y W IT H O U T S E P A R A T E W R IT T E N O P IN IO N

.

L A W R E N C E , J

. , S P E C I A L L Y C O N C U R R IN G :
¶1 6

. I ag ree w ith th e m aj o r ity th at F o ster’s co n v ictio n m u st b e rev ersed b a sed o n th e w ell

estab l ish ed law o f t h e S tate o f M i ssissip p i. I w rite sep arately t o ex p ress m y c o n cern s as to

7w h y

th a t rev ersal is n ecessary

. ¶1 7

. It is ax io m atic th at th e S tate h a s th e e v id e n tiary b u rd e n in a crim i n al p ro secu tio n to

p ro v e ev ery essen tial elem en t o f th e crim e c h arg ed b ey o n d a reaso n a b le d o u b t

. Willia m s v.

S ta te , 1 1 1 S o

. 3 d 6 2 0
, 6 2 4 (¶1 0 ) (M iss. 2 0 1 3 ). T h is b u rd en o f p ro o f “n ev er sh if t s f ro m th e

S tate to th e d ef

en d an t.” Id

. (q u o tin g S lo a n v. S ta te , 3 6 8 S o

. 2 d 2 2 8
, 2 2 9 ( M iss. 1 9 7 9 )). T h e

en tire f u n d am en tal f

o u n d atio n o f th e crim in al j u stice s y s tem is t h a t th e in n o c en t sh o u ld

su f f er n o h arm u n d er o u r law an d th at g u ilty p erso n s sh o u ld b e h eld acco u n tab le f o r t h eir

illeg al acts u p o n a co n stitu tio n al an d leg al in v estig a t io n an d trial. O n e o f th e co res o f

o u r

sep aratio n o f p o w ers i s t h a t t h e ex ecu tiv e b ran ch ( in t h is in stan ce law en f o rcem en t) sh all

i n v e s t ig ate th o se in v o lv ed in v io latin g th e law s p assed b y th e l eg islativ e b ran c h o f

g o v ern m en t

. T h a t in v estig atio n m u s t , at a m in im

u m , i n clu d e o b tain i n g ev id en t iary p ro o f

o f each an d ev ery

essen tial elem en t o f

th e c r im e ch arg ed b ey o n d a reaso n ab le d o u b t. T h e
leg islativ e b ran ch h as req u ired th at b ef o re a p erso n can lo s e h is o r h er l ib erty in th is S tate

f o r t h e crim e o f b u rg l ary , t h e S tate m u st p ro v e, am o n g o t h e r elem en ts, th at t h e p erp etrato r

co m m itted a “b reak in g ” in to a b u sin ess o f an o th er.
¶1 8

. H e re, th e S tate f

ailed to m e et th at b u rd en b ecau se it p resen ted in s u f f icien t p ro o f

th at

F o ster “ actu ally ” o r “ co n stru ctiv e ly ” b ro k e in to th e h o u s e o n D ecem b er 2 1
, 2 0 1 3

. D u rin g

th e trial, th e S t ate in tro d u ced a p h o to o f th e h o u se tak en m an y w eek s o r m o n th s b ef o re th e

crim e in q u estio n

. 3 T h e p h o to g rap h in t ro d u ced i n d i c a t e d t h e b ack d o o r o f th e h o m e in

3 T h e ex act d ate th e p h o to g rap h w a s t ak en w as u n clear. T estim o n y at t rial in d icates it w a s t ak en so m etim e b etw een S ep tem b er 1 4
, 2 0 1 3
, an d N o v em b e r 9
, 2 0 1 3

. T h e crim e
o ccu rred o n D ecem

b er 2 1 , 2 0 1 3

.
8q u estio n h ad t w o d o o rs, o n e so lid d o o r an d o n e sto r m d o o r

. T h e p h o to g rap h d ep icted o n e

d o o r o p en an d an o th er d o o r clo s e d . A t trial, th e S tate o f f ered n o p ro o f as t o th e co n d itio n

o f t h e d o o r o n th e d ate o f th e crim e b ecau se n o d e tectiv e o r o f f icer ev er w en t to th e scen e

to d eterm in e th a t co n d itio n

. ¶1 9

. A t trial, th e S tate called th e lead d etectiv e w h o h ad q u estio n e d F o ster o n th e n ig h t o f

th e crim e. F o ster t o ld t h e d etectiv e th at h e en tered th e h o m e w h e n h e n o ticed th e “b ack d o o r

w a s o p en ” an d to o k th e p ro p erty

. T h e S tate arg u ed th at b ecau s e o n e d o o r w as o p en an d o n e

d o o r w as clo sed i n th e p h o to g r ap h tak en su b stan tia lly b ef o re th e crim e in q u estio n , an d

b e c a u s e F o s ter stated th e “d o o r” in th e sin g u lar w as “o p en ” d u rin g h is law en f o rceme n t

statem en t, th at h e o b v io u sly b ro k e an d en tered th ro u g h o n e d o o r w h en h e en tered t h e h o m e.
¶2 0

. T h e S tate d o es n o t g et to m ak e “leap s o f f aith ” co n cern in g a n essen tial elem en t o f its

b u rd en o f p ro o f

. R a th e r, it m

u st rely o n actu al p ro o f

. T h at p ro o f co u ld h av e b een o b tain ed

in th is case b y g o in g t o th e crim e scen e to in v e s tig ate o r ask in g a f ew m o re q u estio n s d u rin g

F o ster’s l aw en f

o rcem en t i n terv iew o r b o th

. T h e S tate d id n e ith er. In stead
, it ch o se to rely

o n sp ecu l ativ e a r g u m e n ts in a n ef f o rt to clear th e im

p o sin g h u rd le o f p r o o f b ey o n d a

reaso n ab le d o u b t. It m a d e th at ch o ice to i ts d etrim en t an d co n t rary t o w ell-estab lish ed law

. ¶2 1

. In L a d

d v. S t a te , 8 7 S o

. 3 d 1 1 0 8 (M iss. C t. A p p

. 2 0 1 2 ), th is C o u rt rev ersed th e case

o f C h a n ey v. S ta te , 8 0 2 S o

. 3 d 1 1 3 (M iss. C t. A p p

. 2 0 0 1 ), an d h eld th e m ere act o f w alk i n g

th ro u g h a “g arag e d o o r” w as n o t su f f icien t to p ro v e a “b reak in g ” f o r th e crim e o f b u rg lary
,

co d if ied in M ississip p i C o d e A n n o tated sectio n 9 7 -1 7 -2 3 (1 ) (S u p p

. 2 0 1 1 ). L a d d
, 8 7 S o

. 3 d

1 1 1 5 (¶2 2 ). T h e M ississip p i S u p rem e C o u r t i n Wa tso n v. S t a t e , 1 2 3 S o

. 3 d 4 4 6 (M iss.

92 0 1 3 ), af

f irm ed an d ad o p ted t h is C o u rt’s ru lin g in L a d d
, statin g , “[ w ] e a g ree w i th th e C o u rt

o f A p p eals in L a d

d
, t h a t m e rely w alk in g th r o u g h an o p en d o o r d o es n o t s a tisf y th e

‘b reak in g ’ req u irem en t f

o r th e b u rg lary

o f a d w e l lin g .” Id . at 4 4 8 (¶8 ).

¶2 2

. F u rth er, th e su p reme c o u r t h a s h e l d t h a t in s o m e in s tan ces “b reak in g ” can b e

“co n stru ctiv e” d ep en d in g o n th e f acts o f th e p articu lar case. C h r istm a s v. S ta te , 1 0 S o

. 3 d

4 1 3
, 4 2 2 ( ¶4 0 ) (M iss. 2 0 0 9 ) ; se e a l s o H a y n e v. S ta te , 7 4 4 S o

. 2 d 7 5 1
, 7 5 3 (¶¶5 -6 ) (M iss.

1 9 9 9 ), a n d T

em p l eto n v. S ta te , 7 2 5 S o

. 2 d 7 6 4
, 7 6 6 (¶4 ) ( M iss. 1 9 9 8 ). In Wa tso n , th e

su p rem e co u rt m ad e clear in a f o o tn o te t h at, “o u r ru lin g to d a y d o es n o t o v e rru le o u r p rev io u s

o p in i o n s reg ard in g co n stru ctiv e b reak in g

. ” Wa t so n , 1 2 3 S o

. 3 d at 4 4 8 n

. 7 . T h e S tate d id

n o in v estig atio n in to th e n atu re o f th e “b reak in g ” b y F o ster in t h is case. F u rth er, th e S tate

d id n o t seek a “co n stru ctiv e” b r eak in g in stru ctio n

. ¶2 3

. T h e c itizen s o f th is S tate ex p ect its o f f icials to co n d u ct ad eq u ate in v estig a tio n s an d

o b tain su f

f ici e n t p ro o f to en su re th at th e in n o cen t are n o t w ro n g f u l ly p r o secu ted an d th e

g u ilty are h eld acco u n tab le. W ith o u t ad eq u ate in v estig atio n s, i t is easy t o im ag in e a scen ario

w h ere a n in n o ce n t p e rso n is f alsely accu sed a n d p o t en t ially d ep riv e d o f th e f reed o m s w e

ch erish in th is c o u n try

. L ik ew i se, w ith o u t an ad eq u ate in v e s tig atio n , it is easy t o im ag in e

a scen a rio w h ere, a s h e re, th e g u ilty are n o t h e l d acco u n tab le f o r t h e i r c r im in al acts. T h e

p r o p e r f u n ctio n in g o f th e c rim in al j u stice sy stem is v itally d ep e n d en t o n th e ex ecu t iv e

b ran ch (h ere law en f

o rcem en t) d o in g its j o b an d in v estig atin g crim es f o r p ro o f o f each an d

ev ery e ssen tial elem en t. I f th e S tate can n o t p ro v e b ey o n d a r easo n ab le d o u b t each an d ev ery

essen tial e lem en t o f th e crim e ch arg ed u n d er o u r law
, th en th e in d iv id u al is in n o cen t o f t h at

1 0crim e b y

d ef in itio n

. ¶2 4

. H e re, th e S tate relied s o lely o n th e w o rd s o f F o ster. T h o se w o rd s in d i cated h e w alk ed

th ro u g h an “o p en ” d o o r, a n d th ere w as n o f u rth er in v e stig atio n to p ro v e th e tru th o r u n tru th

o f th o se w o rd s o r statu s o f th e actu a l d o o r o n th e n ig h t o f th e crim e

. 4 T h e o n ly th in g th e

S tate p r o v ed in th is case w as th at F o st e r w alk ed th ro u g h th e b a ck d o o r. T h e law o f th is

S ta t e h as b een settled sin ce 2 0 1 2 th at w alk in g th ro u g h an o p en d o o r is in su f f icien t to

estab l ish th e “b reak in g ” e lem en t o f a b u rg lary

. S ee Wa tso n , 1 2 3 S o

. 3 d at 4 4 8 (¶7 ); see a lso

L a d d
, 8 7 S o

. 3 d at 1 1 1 5 (¶2 3 ). A s a resu lt, I ag ree w ith th e m aj o rity th at th e co n v ictio n m u st

b e rev ersed

.

GREENL E E , WESTBROOKS, T I N DELL, Mc D ONALD AND Mc CARTY, JJ. , J O IN T H IS O P IN IO N

.

4 N o t h in g w as o f

f ered o r p ro v en b y th e S tate w h eth er o n th e n ig h t in q u estio n “o p en ,”

as u sed b y

th e d ef en d an t, m ean t eith er:
(1 ) T h e d o o r w a s u n l o ck ed an d clo sed
, w h i ch w o u ld h a v e c o n s t i t u ted a “b reak in g ,” u n d er o u r law
, w h en t h e d ef en d an t p u sh ed i t o p en to e n t er;
o r (2 ) th e d o o r w as o p en (m ean in g n o t c lo sed ), w h ich w o u ld h a v e co n stitu ted

a tresp ass u n d er o u r law
, w h en th e d e f e n d a n t w alk ed th ro u g h it to

en ter.

1 1