## Facts

- Just after midnight on June 20, 2011, a police officer patrolling near Central Mississippi Recycling in Philadelphia, Mississippi, noticed the facility’s entrance cable—normally suspended across the driveway to block after-hours entry—lying on the ground.
- The officer observed that the cable appeared to have cut marks and that the cable clamps appeared loosened.
- The officer drove onto the property to investigate and saw a car being driven around the side of one of the buildings with its headlights off.
- After the driver noticed the police vehicle, he turned on the headlights, turned the car around, and started to leave the property.
- The officer stopped the car about 300 yards from the facility’s main entrance and questioned the driver, Derrick Montrell Henley.
- Henley said he had entered the facility to find a place to turn around; he also had no identification and admitted his driver’s license was suspended.
- The officer saw and later recovered tools from the car, including pliers, bolt cutters, screwdrivers, wrenches, and a socket set; Henley also had a flashlight in his pocket.
- Henley was charged with possession of burglary tools. At trial, he moved for a directed verdict, arguing that the State had not proved he possessed the tools with the intent to commit burglary; the trial court denied the motion.
- A jury convicted Henley, and he was sentenced to five years in prison. After the trial court denied post-trial relief, Henley appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Henley possessed the tools with the intent to use them (or allow them to be used) to aid in the commission of a burglary, as required for Mississippi’s possession-of-burglary-tools offense.

## Decision

- The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed and rendered Henley’s conviction and sentence.
- The court held that the State’s proof did not establish the required intent to use the tools to aid in a burglary, rather than mere suspicious conduct coupled with possession of common tools.
- Because the proof was legally insufficient on an element of the offense, the proper disposition was reversal and rendition rather than a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- For possession of burglary tools, the State must prove not only possession of tools capable of being used in a burglary, but also the defendant’s intent to use (or permit use of) those tools to aid a burglary.
- Ordinary tools with common lawful uses (such as pliers, bolt cutters, screwdrivers, wrenches, and a socket set) do not become “burglary tools” for criminal-liability purposes without proof of the required intent.
- Suspicious circumstances—late-night presence on private property, headlights off, departure after noticing police, and possession of a flashlight and tools—may raise suspicion but still must support a finding of intent beyond a reasonable doubt.
- When the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law to prove an essential element, the remedy is reversal and rendition (a judgment of acquittal), not retrial.

## Conclusion

In *Henley v. State*, the Mississippi Supreme Court set aside a burglary-tools conviction because the State proved Henley had common hand tools and behaved suspiciously at a recycling facility after midnight, but did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed those tools with the intent to use them to aid in the commission of a burglary; the court therefore reversed and rendered the conviction.


Henley v. State, 136 So.3d 413 (2014)