Title: Course v. State
Citation: 469 So. 2d 80
Docket Number: 55428
State: Mississippi
Issuer: Mississippi Supreme Court
Date: May 22, 1985

469 So. 2d 80 (1985) Clarence COURSE v. STATE of Mississippi. No. 55428. Supreme Court of Mississippi. May 1, 1985. As Corrected on Denial of Rehearing May 22, 1985. William B. Kirksey, Kirksey, Brantley &amp; DeLaughter, Jackson, for appellant. Edwin Lloyd Pittman, Atty. Gen. by Billy L. Gore, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee. Before WALKER, P.J., and DAN M. LEE and ROBERTSON, JJ. DAN M. LEE, Justice, for the Court: A jury in the Circuit Court of Hinds County found Clarence Course guilty of the burglary of a dwelling, a violation of Miss. Code Ann. § 97-17-31 (1972). Course was sentenced to serve a term of ten years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. From his conviction and sentence he brings this appeal and assigns as error: We affirm. Course first argues that there was a fatal variance between the indictment and the proof. Course submits that the house which he is accused of burglarizing was not a dwelling. Testimony presented at trial clearly shows that under this Court's interpretations *81 of § 97-17-31 the house was a dwelling. The house belonged to Mrs. Leah Eubanks. Frances Jamison, Mrs. Eubanks' close personal friend and attorney, testified that on the day of the burglary, October 1, 1982, Mrs. Eubanks was in a nursing home. She had entered the nursing home in August of 1982. On December 11, 1982, Mrs. Eubanks would be 90 years old and, according to Mrs. Jamison, she was "getting senile" and unable to care for herself. Prior to being admitted to the nursing home, Mrs. Eubanks lived in the house and intended to return when her health permitted. According to Mrs. Jamison, Mrs. Eubanks has gone back to her house several times. She goes there to visit for an hour or two at a time and gets her mail there. According to Mrs. Jamison, the last time she took Mrs. Eubanks back to her home was in August. Mrs. Jamison did not know if Mrs. Eubanks had been back to her home between August and October, 1982. Mrs. Eubanks still received her mail at that home and Mrs. Jamison had picked it up the day before the burglary. The last time anyone spent the night in Mrs. Eubanks' home was in July, 1982. The leading case defining dwelling under the burglary statute is Robinson v. State, 364 So. 2d 1131 (Miss. 1978). In Robinson the issue was whether a motel room was a dwelling house of its temporary occupants. This Court decided it was not. In 85 A.L.R. 428 (1933), we find the following: 364 So. 2d at 1133, 1134. More recently, in Gillum v. State, 468 So. 2d 856 (1985), this Court held that a weekend home was a dwelling. In that case the owners lived in New Orleans and spent the night in the home only once every two or three weekends. The question in the instant case is most easily answered by the conclusion in the Robinson decision that "The intention of the residents is the material consideration." All of Mrs. Eubanks' personal possessions had remained in the home. Therefore, we are of the opinion that Mrs. Eubanks' house had retained its status as a dwelling during her forced stay in a nursing home. Course's second assignment of error is that the state failed to meet its burden of proof. In Moore v. State, 344 So. 2d 731 (Miss. 1977), this Court held that the crime of burglary of a dwelling has two elements. The state must prove both the burglarious breaking and entering of a dwelling house and the felonious intent to commit some crime therein. The proof unquestionably showed that there had been a burglary at the home on South Drive. In Robinson v. State, 418 So. 2d 749 (Miss. 1982), we held that the unexplained possession of burglary tools shortly after a burglary is admissible as evidence of guilt. Shortly after the burglary was reported, Course was stopped a short distance therefrom. He was seen trying to hide gloves and screwdrivers under the seat of the car he was riding in. Also in that car were numerous items identified as stolen from Mrs. Eubanks' house. We are of the opinion that when all of the evidence is considered in the light most favorable to the state, together with the reasonable inferences that flow therefrom, the verdict of guilty of burglary was supported by the evidence. See Goldman v. State, 406 So. 2d 816 (Miss. 1981). Course's final assignment of error is that the court should not have granted state's Instructions 1 and 2. He argues that these instructions failed to set forth the appropriate burden of proof because, according to Course, the state's evidence was wholly circumstantial and he was therefore entitled to an instruction that the jury must *83 prove his guilt not only beyond a reasonable doubt but also to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence. We are not persuaded. The defense failed to object to Instruction S-1. Although there was an objection to S-2 it was on the ground that it was repetitive to S-1. At no time did the defense fault either of these instructions for failing to set forth a circumstantial evidence burden of proof. Neither did the defense offer a circumstantial evidence burden of proof instruction on its own. We therefore find no merit to this assignment of error. Based on all of the foregoing, we hereby affirm this cause. AFFIRMED. PATTERSON, C.J., WALKER and ROY NOBLE LEE, P.JJ., and HAWKINS, PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN and ANDERSON, JJ., concur.