Opinion ID: 1689459
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the trial court erred in denying brown's motion for directed verdict.

Text: ¶ 5. In ruling upon a motion for a directed verdict, all of the State's evidence must be accepted as true, together with any reasonable inferences that can be drawn from that evidence. If sufficient evidence exists to support a verdict of guilty, the motion should be denied. Wall v. State, 718 So.2d 1107, 1113-14 (Miss. 1998). ¶ 6. Brown argues that since the crime of burglary was not complete at the time of his arrest and there was no proof of his intent, he should only be charged with trespassing. The State responds that Brown failed to rebut the presumption of intent to commit an unlawful act. ¶ 7. The elements of the crime of burglary are that the perpetrator, acting with an intent to steal items of value, breaks and enters a shop where the valuable items are kept. Miss.Code Ann. § 97-17-33 (2000). [1] Here, the breaking and entering was proven from the officers' direct, eyewitness testimony. Brown was caught red-handed hanging out of a freshly broken window of an auto repair shop. ¶ 8. Nevertheless, since no item of value was found on Brown's person, he believes the State failed to prove intent. Intent, however, may be inferred from the circumstances: Some presumptions are to be indulged in against one who enters a building unbidden at a late hour of night, else the burglar caught without booty might escape the penalties of the law. People are not accustomed in the nighttime to enter homes of others, when asleep, with innocent purposes. The usual object is theft; and this is the inference ordinarily to be drawn in the absence of explanation from breaking and entering at night accompanied by flight when discovered, even though nothing has been taken. Nichols v. State, 207 Miss. 291, 296-97, 42 So.2d 201, 202-03 (1949) (quoting State v. Worthen, 111 Iowa 267, 82 N.W. 910, 911 (1900)). Also, [i]ntent is an emotional operation of the mind, and is usually shown by acts and declarations of the defendant coupled with facts and circumstances surrounding him at the time. Defendant's intention is manifested largely by the things he does. Newburn v. State, 205 So.2d 260, 265 (Miss.1967). ¶ 9. Considering the witnesses' testimony, the fair and logical inference is that Brown entered the shop with the intent to steal. The jury was correct in finding Brown guilty of burglary, since he broke in at a late hour and had no reasonable explanation for his entering the shop without permission of the owner. ¶ 10. We find this assignment of error to be without merit.