O'Neal v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2001-KA-01844-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 03-18-2003
Opinion Author: Griffis, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Burglary of a dwelling - Sufficiency of evidence
Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers and Chandler, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 10-16-2001
Appealed from: Sunflower County Circuit Court
Judge: Margaret Carey-McCray
Disposition: BURGLARY OF A DWELLING - SENTENCE OF 8 YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
District Attorney: Frank Carlton
Case Number: 2000-0131-K

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: John Wesley O'Neal, a/k/a Johnny O'Neil




W. S. STUCKEY



 

Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: W. GLENN WATTS  

Synopsis provided by:

If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office.

Topic: Burglary of a dwelling - Sufficiency of evidence

Summary of the Facts: John O’Neal was convicted of burglary of a dwelling and sentenced to eight years. He appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: O’Neal argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, because it failed to establish that he was seen inside the rental house removing an air conditioning unit or at any time holding an air conditioning unit. Common sense circumstances to be considered include the temporal proximity of the possession to the crime to be inferred; the number or percentage of the fruits of the crime possessed; the nature of the possession in terms of whether there is an attempt at concealment or any other evidence of guilty knowledge; and whether an explanation is given and whether that explanation is plausible or demonstrably false. The record shows that O'Neal was not only found in close proximity to the burglarized home, but was actually found at the home that was burglarized. In addition, he was in close proximity to the stolen property. He was standing over one removed unit when he was approached and the other unit and additional front panel were discovered in his car. This evidence is legally sufficient for the jury to infer guilt of burglary.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court