Opinion ID: 1726271
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: whether the trial court erred by allowing jury instructions s-1 and s-2.

Text: ¶ 19. Turner contends that the trial court erred by allowing Jury Instruction S-1 because the State failed to put on any evidence of intent to steal any property belonging to the alleged victim. Turner further asserts that the trial court additionally erred by allowing Jury Instruction S-2 because the State failed to show that Turner ever entered Williamson's truck. The State asserts that the trial court did not err by granting Jury Instructions S-1 and S-2 because there was sufficient evidence to support the grant of the instructions. ¶ 20. Turner's argument in support of this issue is without cited authority. This Court has held, We remain steadfast to rule that failure to cite any authority may be treated as a procedural bar, and we are under no obligation to consider the assignment. McClain v. State, 625 So.2d 774, 781 (Miss.1993) (citing Smith v. Dorsey, 599 So.2d 529, 532 (Miss.1992); RC Petroleum, Inc. v. Hernandez, 555 So.2d 1017, 1023 (Miss.1990); Brown v. State, 534 So.2d 1019, 1023 (Miss.1988); Shive v. State, 507 So.2d 898, 900 (Miss.1987); Read v. Southern Pine Elec. Power Ass'n, 515 So.2d 916, 921 (Miss. 1987); Pate v. State, 419 So.2d 1324, 1326 (Miss.1982)). Regardless of the bar, Turner's argument still fails on its merits. ¶ 21. The standard of review for reviewing challenges to jury instructions is as follows: In determining whether error lies in the granting or refusal of various instructions, the instructions actually given must be read as a whole. When so read, if the instructions fairly announce the law of the case and create no injustice, no reversible error will be found. Coleman v. State, 697 So.2d 777, 782 (Miss.1997) (quoting Collins v. State, 691 So.2d 918 (Miss.1997)). Furthermore, [t]he general rule is that jury instructions must be supported by evidence and must provide that the jury must find each element of the crime under the proper standard of proof. Wilson v. State, 592 So.2d 993, 997 (Miss.1991) (citing Turner v. State, 573 So.2d 1340, 1343 (Miss.1990)). ¶ 22. Jury Instruction S-1 provided as follows: Timothy Turner has been charged with the offense of burglary by breaking and entering an automobile. If you find from the evidence in this case beyond a reasonable doubt that Timothy Turner, on or about April 6, 1996 in Yazoo County did unlawfully, willfully, feloniously and burglariously break and enter a 1990 Chevrolet pickup being where any valuable thing was kept for use with intent to steal personal property kept therein then you shall find the defendant guilty of Auto Burglary as charged. If the prosecution has failed to prove any one or more of the above listed elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then you shall find Timothy Turner not guilty of Auto Burglary. Miss.Code Ann. § 97-17-33 sets forth the elements of the crime of auto burglary as follows: Every person who shall be convicted of breaking and entering, in the day or night, any ... automobile ... in which any goods, merchandise, equipment or valuable thing shall be kept for use, sale, deposit, or transportation, with intent to steal therein, or to commit any felony ... shall be guilty of burglary, and imprisoned in the penitentiary not more than seven (7) years. Miss.Code Ann. § 97-17-33 (1994). Thus, we find that Jury Instruction S-1 properly set forth the elements of auto burglary and the standard of proof, i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt, that each element had to be established. In addition, this Court has held that an instruction is sufficient when it follows the language of the pertinent statute. Sanders v. State, 586 So.2d 792, 796 (Miss. 1991) (citing Crenshaw v. State, 520 So.2d 131 (Miss.1988)). ¶ 23. Turner, however, alleges that Jury Instruction S-1 should not have been granted because the State failed to offer sufficient evidence of intent. However, we find that the State presented sufficient evidence to support the giving of Jury Instruction S-1 because the State presented testimony from both Williamson and Vancleve that Turner was sitting in the truck on broken glass with Williamson's property in his lap. This evidence was sufficient to support a jury instruction on the crime of auto burglary which requires the establishment of a requisite intent to steal. ¶ 24. Turner additionally alleges that Jury Instruction S-2 should not have been given because the State failed to present evidence that Turner entered the truck. Jury Instruction S-2 read as follows: The word entering as used in the burglary instruction means the act of making one's way into an automobile. The least entry with any part of the body or with any instrument is sufficient to constitute an entering. However, the State presented evidence through the testimony of both Williamson and Vancleve that Turner was sitting inside the truck. Thus, there was sufficient evidence to support a jury instruction further defining the required element of entering to constitute a burglary. ¶ 25. As a result, we hold that this assignment of error is both procedurally barred and, alternatively, without merit.