Ladd v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-KA-01430-COA | |
| Oral Argument: | 01-25-2012 | |
* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users). |
||
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-01-2012 Opinion Author: Barnes, J. Holding: Affirmed in Part, Reversed and Rendered in Rart, and Reversed and Remanded in Part. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Conspiracy to commit grand larceny, Grand larceny, Burglary of dwelling & Receiving stolen property - Sufficiency of evidence - Common plan - Breaking - Trespass - Value of stolen property - Knowledge of stolen property Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Ishee, Russell and Fair, JJ. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Irving, P.J., and Maxwell, J., Concur in Part and Dissent in Part Without Separate Written Opinion Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-18-2010 Appealed from: DeSoto County Circuit Court Judge: Robert P. Chamberlin Disposition: CONVICTED OF COUNT I, CONSPIRACY, AND SENTENCED AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER TO FIVE YEARS; COUNT II, BURGLARY OF A DWELLING, AND SENTENCED TO TWENTY- FIVE YEARS; COUNT III, GRAND LARCENY, AND SENTENCED TO TEN YEARS; AND COUNT IV, POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY, AND SENTENCED TO TEN YEARS, WITH THE SENTENCES TO RUN CONCURRENTLY, ALL IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, AND TO PAY $1,000 TO THE MISSISSIPPI CRIME VICTIMS’ COMPENSATION FUND AND $800 IN RESTITUTION TO VICTIM District Attorney: John W. Champion Case Number: CR-2009-0032-CD |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Earnest Ladd |
MOLLIE MARIE MCMILLIN |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: STEPHANIE BRELAND WOOD |
|
|
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: | Conspiracy to commit grand larceny, Grand larceny, Burglary of dwelling & Receiving stolen property - Sufficiency of evidence - Common plan - Breaking - Trespass - Value of stolen property - Knowledge of stolen property |
| Summary of the Facts: | Earnest Ladd was convicted of conspiracy to commit grand larceny, grand larceny, burglary of a dwelling, and receiving stolen property. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to five years for conspiracy, ten years for grand larceny, twenty-five years for burglary, and five years for receiving stolen property. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Ladd argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for all four counts. Ladd argues that the State failed to present any evidence that he conspired with another man to commit grand larceny. He claims the only evidence of the crime of conspiracy comes from the victim’s testimony that she saw the two men stealing items from her garage. A conspiracy is a completed offense, requiring proof of no overt act done in pursuance thereof. Each conspirator must intend a common plan and know its common purpose. Here, the victim testified that the two men were in her garage, and when she discovered them, they threw her lawn equipment into the back of a truck and sped away. It can be inferred from the actions of Ladd and the other man that a common plan to steal items from Brown’s garage was agreed upon. Thus, Ladd’s conviction on this count is affirmed. With regard to burglary of a dwelling, Ladd argues that since he walked through an open garage door, the “breaking” element of the crime of burglary of a dwelling was not satisfied. Rather, he contends that the evidence produced a showing of no more than a trespass charge against him. The jury was instructed to find Ladd guilty of burglary of a dwelling if it found beyond a reasonable doubt that: the victim’s house was a dwelling; Ladd “unlawfully broke and entered said dwelling”; and Ladd intended to commit the crime of larceny once inside. The jury was not given a definition of breaking. There is nothing in the record to indicate that Ladd or the other man used any act of force in entering the victim’s garage. The victim testified she left the garage door up because she was getting ready to leave for work. A breaking is conducted by an act of force, regardless of how slight, necessary to be used in entering a building, such as turning a knob, a slight push to further open a door, or raising a latch. The mere act of walking through a raised, open garage door does not constitute an “act or force, however slight, employed to effect an entrance” and is not a “breaking.” Therefore, Ladd’s act of walking through the open garage door does not satisfy the necessary “breaking” element to warrant a charge for burglary of a dwelling. Ladd’s actions, however, do warrant a lesser-included charge of trespass upon the victim’s property. With regard to grand larceny, Ladd argues that because the value of the stolen property was not adequately proven at trial, there was not sufficient evidence to support his conviction for grand larceny. The value of a stolen item is an essential element of grand larceny, and the State’s failure to prove the value warrants resentencing for petit larceny. In determining the value of the stolen property, the appropriate measure is the market value of the property at the time and place of the larceny; the original cost of the property or any special value to the owner personally is not considered. Here, the victim provided the only testimony of the value of the lawn equipment. She testified that the stolen items were: a Troy-Bilt lawn mower that she bought for $400; a Husqvarna weed eater, for which she paid $250; and a Black and Decker edger purchased for $200, for a total loss of $850. Furthermore, she stated that none of the three items were more than a year old and that the lawn mower was only a few months old. This type of testimony circumstantially provides a basis from which the jury could infer the value of the items. Thus, the evidence is sufficient on this count. With regard to receiving stolen property, Ladd argues that there was no evidence to support the charge for receiving stolen property. The State must not only prove the defendant’s possession, receipt, retention or disposition of stolen property, but must also show that the defendant knew or had reasonable grounds to believe the property had been stolen. It is not necessary to prove that the defendant took the stolen property into his hands, but rather that the defendant has performed some act with respect to the property, that he has exercised dominion or control over it, though such need not have been exclusive. While there was evidence that Ladd exerted some dominion or control over the vehicle through the act of loading the victim’s lawn equipment into the back of the truck, the State failed to present any evidence, direct or inferential, that Ladd was aware that the truck itself was stolen. The only evidence linking Ladd to the stolen truck is the victim’s testimony that each time she saw the two men in the truck, Ladd was a passenger. Ladd’s status as a mere passenger in the stolen vehicle is not sufficient to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Ladd intentionally possessed, received, retained or disposed of the truck knowing that it had been stolen or having reasonable grounds to believe it had been stolen. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
