Opinion ID: 1821031
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: did the trial court err in refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of trespass?

Text: Trespass is necessarily a constituent offense of every burglary. Anderson v. State, 290 So.2d 628 (Miss. 1974). It is argued that the trial court erred in refusing instruction D-5, which states that even if the defendant is not guilty of burglary of a dwelling, he may still be found guilty of trespass; and further for refusing instruction D-8, which includes within the possible forms of the verdict, a form to find the defendant guilty of criminal trespass. A trial court may instruct the jury with references to lesser included offenses when the Court feels such an instruction is warranted by the evidence. Jackson v. State, 337 So.2d 1242 (Miss. 1976). In Jackson, we stated: Such an instruction should not be indiscriminately or automatically given, ... but should only be given after the trial court has carefully considered the evidence and is of the opinion that such an instruction is justified by the evidence. Id. at 1255. The proof showed beyond a reasonable doubt that Gillum entered the house with a larcenous intent. Therefore, a trespass instruction was not warranted. There was no evidence to indicate that Gillum was a casual visitor or that he entered for any purpose other than to make himself at home, to plunder and steal. In the absence of any explanation for his presence, the factfinder could give full credit to the testimony shown against him. Under the facts of this case, the trial court correctly ruled that the jury could either find Gillum guilty of burglary of a dwelling or innocent. There is no merit to this assignment.