Opinion ID: 1498148
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: The Burglaries

Text: To sustain a conviction for burglary, the state must present evidence that a person enters or remains unlawfully in an occupiable structure of another person with the purpose of committing therein any offense punishable by imprisonment. Ark.Code Ann. § 5-39-201 (1987). While conceding that Rogers High School and Southside Kindergarten Center are occupiable structures within the meaning of the statute, Stout argues that the state failed to prove that (1) he entered the buildings, and (2) he possessed the requisite mental state. The inventory of Stout's personal property, including a Good Teacher key ring, led the police officers to inspect nearby schools. Upon arrival at Rogers High School, Officer Riggs found the cafeteria door had been broken into and the door plate on the boiler room door had been removed. The south doors to the Kindergarten Center had been broken into and footprints, with the same tread pattern discovered at the car wash, were found outside the door. That door was open. Inside the building the officers observed pry marks on both doors to an office. Desk drawers were open and items were scattered over the floor. In the secretary's office a change drawer was open and a metal money box in the storage room was empty. Ray Roney, a representative of the schools, identified the screw drivers found on Stout as belonging to him. Roney identified the Good Teacher key ring as the key to the school's Coke machine. Karen Bennham, the elementary principal at the Kindergarten Center, testified that between $125 and $130 was missing from the secretary's desk. Jimmy Masner, head custodian of Rogers School System, testified that Little Debbie cookie wrappers were lying on the cafeteria floor after the break-in, yet the floor was clean when he left work that evening. The cookie wrappers were identical to the wrapper of the brownies found on Stout. We have consistently held that possession of recently stolen property is prima facie evidence of guilt of burglary of the party in whose possession the property is found, unless it is satisfactorily accounted for to the jury. Lane v. State, 288 Ark. 175, 702 S.W.2d 806 (1986); Jacobs v. State, 287 Ark. 367, 699 S.W.2d 400 (1985); Ward v. State, 280 Ark. 353, 658 S.W.2d 379 (1983); Williams v. State, 258 Ark. 207, 523 S.W.2d 377 (1975). This is so even if there is no direct evidence of breaking or entering by the appellant. Jacobs, supra , and when there is no other evidence to show the appellant had committed the crimes with felonious intent. Williams v. State, supra . Such evidence raises no presumption of law as to guilt of the accused, but only warrants an inference of fact, of more or less weight according to the particular circumstances of each case, which the jury may draw therefrom as to his guilt. It makes a question for the jury, and is sufficient to warrant conviction where it induces in the minds of the jury a belief, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the guilt of the accused. Lane v. State, 288 Ark. at 178, 702 S.W.2d at 807. There was substantial evidence in this case from which a jury could reasonably infer that Stout was guilty.