MCINNIS v. STATE
| Docket Number: | 2008-CT-01576-SCT Linked Case(s): 2008-KA-01576-COA ; 2008-KA-01576-COA ; 2008-CT-01576-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-07-2011 Opinion Author: Justice Lamar Holding: Reversed and remanded. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Burglary of dwelling - Two-theory instruction |
|
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 dwelling - Two-theory instruction |
| Summary of the Facts: | Johnny McInnis was convicted of burglary of a dwelling. He appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | McInnis argues that the trial court committed reversible error in failing to grant a two-theory instruction when the State presented no direct evidence that he committed the crime of burglary. A two-theory instruction instructs the jury what to do when the record supports two or more hypotheses of the crime committed and all the evidence of the crime is circumstantial. A trial court may refuse a two-theory instruction if it has granted a (general) circumstantial-evidence instruction. A circumstantial-evidence instruction provides that the State must prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and to the exclusion of all reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence. While a two-theory instruction is different from a circumstantial-evidence instruction, the rules for when they are appropriately given apply to both. In this case, the State was required to prove either directly or circumstantially that McInnis was the man who broke into and entered the home with the intent to commit larceny. And in fact, the jury was instructed to that effect. But the homeowner did not testify that she saw McInnis commit any act in her home, nor is there any other direct evidence that identifies McInnis as the perpetrator. The gravamen for this offense is tied to a specific defendant. Furthermore, McInnis never confessed or made any admission to a significant element of the crime. While the Court of Appeals identified various testimony as direct evidence that a crime was committed, this was not direct evidence that McInnis committed the crime of burglary. Therefore, the trial court abused its discretion by denying a two-theory instruction, because it gave no other circumstantial instruction. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
