Court Opinion

ID: 9532253
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:19:37.428125+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:42.938479
License: Public Domain

Bashara, J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent. My examination of the transcript convinces me that the trial judge adequately instructed the jury as to the question of criminal intent. The following appears to be ample indication of the court’s charge to the jury. After reading the statute, the judge stated:
"To establish this charge the People must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: First, that the implement or device alleged is a burglar tool or tools. The term 'burglar tools’ is an abbreviated definition for a tool or implement adapted and designed for breaking and entering. 'Adapted and designed’ means that the tools are not only capable of being used for breaking and entering, but also designed or expressly contrived to be employed for such purpose. Second, that the defendant or defendants knowingly *99possessed them. Third, at the time that they were possessed, the defendant knew that they were adapted and designed for the purpose of breaking and entering. Fourth, that at the time he possessed them the defendant specifically intended to use them for breaking and entering a building, vault or other depository. Those are the things that the prosecution must prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt.
"Now, your possible verdicts in this case, members of the jury—and as I have indicated, each of the defendants is entitled to separate consideration of his case. So your possible verdicts then, members of the jury, will be two. Whatever they be, you will have to come in with two verdicts. One as far as Mr. Boone is concerned and one as far as Mr. Rigsby is concerned.”
Based on the foregoing, I would affirm defendant’s conviction.