White v. Mississippi
Annotate this CaseRichard White was convicted of burglary of a dwelling. The jury was instructed it could find White guilty of burglary of a dwelling if it found he broke and entered the home “with the intent to commit the crime of larceny and/or assault therein.” While the jury was instructed on the elements of aggravated assault, it was not given any instruction on the definition of larceny. On appeal, a divided Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Consistent with its recent decision in "Windless v. Mississippi," (185 So. 3d 956 (Miss. 2015)), finding use of the word “larceny” as it was commonly used and understood by the general public was sufficient in this case to define for the jury the requisite intent needed to support a conviction of burglary, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals as well as the trial court’s judgment and sentence.
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.