Arbuckle, et al. v. State
| Docket Number: | 2003-KA-00335-COA Linked Case(s): 2003-CT-00335-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-23-2004 Opinion Author: Griffis, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Burglary of dwelling & Simple assault - Lesser included offense instruction - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Bridges and Lee, P.JJ., Irving, Myers, Chandler, Barnes and Ishee, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: King, C.J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-27-2003 Appealed from: Itawamba County Circuit Court Judge: Sharion R. Aycock Disposition: AS TO RANDY ARBUCKLE - COUNT I - CONVICTED OF BURGLARY AND SENTENCED TO 25 YEARS WITH 15 YEARS SUSPENDED, 5 TO SERVE, 5 YEARS POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION; COUNT II - CONVICTED OF SIMPLE ASSAULT AND SENTENCED TO 6 MONTHS WITH SAID SENTENCE TO BE SUSPENDED. AS TO TANOAH BITTICK - COUNT I CONVICTED OF BURGLARY AND SENTENCED TO 5 YEARS WITH SAID SENTENCE SUSPENDED. COUNT II - CONVICTED OF SIMPLE ASSAULT AND SENTENCED TO SERVE A TERM OF 6 MONTHS WITH SAID SENTENCE SUSPENDED. Case Number: CR02-072 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Randy Arbuckle a/k/a Randy Dean Arbuckle and Tanoah Bittick |
|||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi |
|
||
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 & Simple assault - Lesser included offense instruction - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Randy Arbuckle and Tanoah Bittick were convicted of burglary of a dwelling and simple assault. For the burglary conviction, Arbuckle was sentenced to twenty-five years, with fifteen years of the sentence suspended and five years of post-release supervision. Bittick was sentenced to five years, with five years suspended. For the simple assault conviction, Arbuckle and Bittick were each sentenced to six months. They appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Lesser included offense instruction Arbuckle and Bittick argue that the court erred when it refused to give a proposed jury instruction which would allow the jury to find them guilty of trespass, as a lesser-included offense, rather than burglary. The accused is entitled to a lesser-included offense instruction only where there is an evidentiary basis in the record. The evidence at trial did not support such an instruction. Furthermore, even if the State did not establish the breaking and entering, Arbuckle and Bittick asserted their innocence based on alleged permission to enter the dwelling and satisfy the debt owed to Bittick rather than that they were at most guilty of mere trespass. Thus, a lesser-included instruction for trespass would be moot given their argument that they had permission to be on the premises. Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence Arbuckle and Bittick argue that the State failed to prove all elements of the charge of burglary beyond a reasonable doubt, because the evidence was insufficient to establish the intent to commit an assault because no direct evidence was offered. The absence of direct evidence does not mean that there was a complete lack of evidence that Arbuckle and Bittick intended to commit a crime once inside. Indeed, Bittick, through her own testimony, established that she and Arbuckle went to Robbins' home to attempt to satisfy the debt owed to Bittick, and when this could not be accomplished by Mears, a commotion ensued resulting in Mears being hit in the face. Furthermore, Bittick admitted that, after the commotion, she took the paycheck, cashed it and returned to Robbins' home to give her the balance of the check. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
