https://casetext.com/case/howard-v-state-924 Howard v. State, 227 Ga. App. 5, 8 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997) (“(b) "A person commits the offense of burglary when, without authority and with the intent to commit a felony or theft therein, he enters or remains within the dwelling house of another. . . ." OCGA § 16-7-1 (a). Here, the State proved that Ellison's dwelling was entered without her permission or authority. Brinson v. State, 208 Ga. App. 556, 557 (3), 558 ( 430 S.E.2d 875). The presence of valuables, such as Ellison's television, is sufficient to support an inference of defendant's intent to steal. Miller v. State, 208 Ga. App. 547 (1) ( 430 S.E.2d 873). In the case sub judice, the evidence was sufficient to authorize the jury's verdict that defendant is guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, of burglary as alleged in the indictment.”) So year old state case.
Besides, a TV sure doesn't sound like the 2x4's being discussed above.
You mean a 23 year old case in the state where the events occurred.
VS. a SCOTUS decision from last year.
Doesn’t matter when the SCOTUS case was from if it is immaterial to the issues in this case...which it is.
No, it's not.
It also explains the more details explanation of a later Georgia case you ignored:
And this is an actual Georgia Supreme Court Case, not an appellate case like you quoted.
. “Generally speaking, in a burglary trial a jury must, of necessity, find intent to commit a felony on the basis of circumstantial evidence.” Jackson v. State, 270 Ga. 494, 496 (1) (512 SE2d 241) (1999).
We have long recognized that intent may be inferred from the presence of valuables inside the place the defendant sought to access. Steadman v. State, 81 Ga. 736, 736 (2) (8 SE 420) (1888); accord Long v. State, 307 Ga. App. 669, 671 (1) (705 SE2d 889) (2011) (holding that a jury may infer that a defendant intended to commit theft based on the presence of valuables inside the premises,
when the jury concludes that there is no other apparent or credible motive for the defendant's unauthorized entry). The jury is thus allowed, but not required, to infer an ultimate fact from proof of a basic fact. See Pollard v. State, 249 Ga. 21, 22 (2) (287 SE2d 189) (1982). “It places no burden on the defendant; it merely advises and guides the jury as to what conclusions they might draw from circumstantial evidence presented at trial.” Id. The fact that the jury is permitted to exercise a permissive inference of intent to steal when deciding a burglary charge does not mean that the defendant has any obligation to testify or otherwise contest that inference. But it also does not mean that another charge must be offered even where there is no evidence to support it.
