Opinion ID: 4521985
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Temporal Proximity of the Possession

Text: ¶16. Shelvy was found with a knife matching the one stolen from Duncan’s camp a mere five minutes after law enforcement was dispatched to investigate a reported burglary at the camp. The remaining stolen items were discovered shortly thereafter just a few yards from where Shelvy was stopped. 2. Number or Percentage of the Fruits of the Crime Possessed ¶17. Only one item, the knife, was found on Shelvy’s person. The remaining items were found a short distance away from where Shelvy was stopped by law enforcement. Although the knife was the only item found on Shelvy’s person, the record shows that it was the only stolen item that Shelvy could have concealed on his person. The other stolen items, a television, two saws, a hammer, and some hats, were too large. 6 3. Nature of the Possession ¶18. The knife was concealed in Shelvy’s pocket. The remaining stolen items were concealed in a black plastic bag and were discovered “[j]ust in the edge of the bush” in a ditch near the camp, approximately twenty yards behind where Shelvy was stopped. Additionally, according to Deputy Bailey, Shelvy was “sweating like he had run a marathon,” from which the jury could infer that he had been running from the camp in an attempt to avoid detection. 4. Explanation for the Possession ¶19. “The inference of participation in the crime is strongest when a defendant fails to make a credible explanation or makes a clearly false explanation.” Jones v. State, 995 So. 2d 146, 151 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (citing Brooks v. State, 695 So. 2d 593, 595 (Miss. 1997)). At trial, Shelvy testified in his own defense. Shelvy stated that on the day in question, he caught a ride to the creek behind Duncan’s camp. But when asked, Shelvy was unable to recall with whom he caught the ride. Shelvy was also unable to recall about what time he arrived at the creek. ¶20. Shelvy explained that he had been fishing and was walking down the road when Deputy Bailey stopped him. But the record shows that at the time he was stopped, Shelvy had no fishing line, fishing pole, or any other fishing equipment with him. Shelvy denied telling Deputy Bailey that he was headed to Robert Day’s automobile shop. In fact, Shelvy stated he did not recall “telling Officer Bailey nothing [sic].” He stated that Deputy Bailey lied about the alleged conversation and the direction Shelvy was walking. According to 7 Shelvy, he was not headed towards Robert Day’s automobile shop but was instead headed in the opposite direction toward Fayette. ¶21. Shelvy testified that the knife found in his pocket belonged to him. But Duncan testified that the knife was identical to the one he had at his camp that was missing after the burglary. Interestingly, Shelvy testified that the knife admitted into evidence at trial was not the knife that was taken from him. Shelvy stated that Deputy Bailey lied “about this knife coming out of [his] pocket.” ¶22. Regarding the other stolen items, Shelvy testified that he did not see the items in the black plastic bag in the ditch. But Deputy Bailey testified that you “couldn’t miss it.” ¶23. Shelvy denied any involvement in the charged burglary. He admitted that he had walked through the property to get from the creek to the road but stated that he did not get near the camp. ¶24. “[W]hen the evidence is conflicting, the jury will be the sole judge of the credibility of witnesses and the weight and worth of their testimony.” Little v. State, 233 So. 3d 288, 292 (Miss 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Gathright v. State, 380 So. 2d 1276, 1278 (Miss. 1980)). The record shows that Shelvy’s theory of the case was presented to the jury, and the jury was given the proper circumstantial-evidence instruction. Additionally, the jury was instructed that the “mere possession of stolen articles, by itself, is not enough to convict a person for the crime of burglary.” ¶25. Considering the evidence and the factors set forth in Shields, and in light of our standard of review, this Court finds sufficient evidence was presented to support the verdict. 8