Luther Crook v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 1999-KA-01586-COA
LUTHER CROOK
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF TRIAL COURT
JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
APPELLANT
APPELLEE
08/30/1996
HON. ISADORE W. PATRICK JR.
ISSAQUENA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
RICHARD EARL SMITH JR.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: JOHN R. HENRY JR.
G. GILMORE MARTIN
CRIMINAL - FELONY
BURGLARY OF A BUSINESS, SENTENCED TO SERVE
7 YEARS CONSECUTIVELY WITH ANOTHER
SENTENCE
AFFIRMED - 04/24/2001
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
CERTIORARI FILED:
; denied 10/11/2001
MANDATE ISSUED:
6/28/2001
BEFORE SOUTHWICK, P.J., MYERS AND CHANDLER, JJ.
SOUTHWICK, P.J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. Luther Crook was convicted in the Issaquena County Circuit Court of burglary of a business. On
appeal, Crook argues that the trial court erred in failing to grant a directed verdict because the
circumstantial evidence did not support the conviction. We disagree and affirm.
FACTS
¶2. After receiving a report that a dead man was lying in a car, the Issaquena Sheriff's Department
investigated and found Luther Crook dead to the world, but only passed out drunk in his car. While trying
to wake Crook, who smelled of alcohol, the officers saw a police radio on the back seat of the car. Once
Crook was awake, the officers arrested him because of the presumably stolen radio. In addition to the
radio, a set of keys was found that later tied him to a burglary. Crook claimed that the keys were for his
house. Also in the car was a half gallon of J&B Scotch whiskey.
¶3. Later that day, the department received a call concerning a burglary. The owner and others used the
building as a hunting camp. When the police arrived, the door was standing open with a key in the lock. The
key is normally kept above the frame of another door. The interior of the building had been ransacked. Mr.
Alford, who reported the crime, told police that he thought a set of keys and a half gallon of J&B Scotch
were missing. The officers discovered shoe prints.
¶4. Officer Clark remembered the keys and bottle of Scotch found in Crook's car. He retrieved the keys
and Crook's shoes from the department. The keys that Crook had in his car were the keys missing from the
hunting camp. Crook's shoes matched the prints found at the crime scene. Continuing to investigate, the
officers found cigarette butts at the hunting camp that were of the same brand found in Crook's car. Further,
tire tracks found at the scene matched those from the defendant's car.
¶5. Crook was indicted for burglary of a business. During the trial the caretaker of the hunting camp
testified that Crook had previously been to the camp to do repair work. Mr. Alford testified that he and his
sons had been at the camp the day before the burglary was discovered. Although he did not go inside the
building, his sons did. Mr. Alford was not alerted to any problems. Crook did not testify. Crook was found
guilty of burglary of a building.
DISCUSSION
¶6. Crook argues that the trial court erred in failing to grant a directed verdict. He contends that the
circumstantial evidence did not support the conviction.
¶7. This argument raises a question of the sufficiency of evidence. On appeal, the evidence must be
considered in the light most favorable to the State and we accept all evidence as true. McRee v. State, 732
So. 2d 246, 248 (Miss. 1999). In cases based solely on circumstantial evidence, the State has the burden
to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis.
Id.
¶8. The evidence presented at trial were the set of missing keys found in the defendant's car, the same kind
of bottle of missing Scotch, footprints that matched the shoes worn by the defendant, tire tread marks at the
scene that matched the tire on the defendant's car and cigarette butts of the same brand found in the car.
The evidence was circumstantial.
¶9. Crook argues that the keys are the only substantial piece of evidence and states that mere possession of
recently stolen property is insufficient to support conviction for burglary. Of course, this is not a mere
possession case. Regardless, the sufficiency of the inference of burglary that arises from facts such as these
is to be analyzed using these considerations:
1. The temporal proximity of the possession to the crime to be inferred;
2. The number or percentage of the fruits of the crime possessed;
3. The nature of the possession in terms of whether there is an attempt at concealment
or any other evidence of guilty knowledge;
4. Whether an explanation is given and whether that explanation is plausible or
demonstrably false.
Shields v. State, 702 So. 2d 380, 383 (Miss. 1997).
¶10. The keys were found in Crook's possession within twenty-four hours of the burglary. Crook
possessed not only the keys but also a similar bottle of Scotch. There was no attempt to conceal, as Crook
was passed out when discovered. However, when the defendant was first asked about the keys, he stated
that they were his house keys. That was clearly false as the keys fit the locks at the building. Moreover, the
possession of the keys and bottle combine with the evidence of the footprints, tire marks and cigarette
butts. We find sufficient evidence to support the verdict.
¶11. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ISSAQUENA COUNTY OF
CONVICTION OF BURGLARY OF A BUSINESS AND SENTENCE OF SEVEN YEARS IN
THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS TO RUN
CONSECUTIVE TO NUMBER 4236P IS AFFIRMED. COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE
ASSESSED TO ISSAQUENA COUNTY.
McMILLIN, C.J., KING, P.J., PAYNE, BRIDGES, THOMAS, LEE, IRVING, MYERS
AND CHANDLER, JJ., CONCUR.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
