Background
Scotty Kamakahoohie White was charged with second-degree burglary after an off-duty La Paz County sheriff’s lieutenant saw him around 6:00 a.m. walking away from a vacant Parker house while carrying black and gray gun bags. The lieutenant recognized White from prior interactions and later reported that the house’s doors were unsecured.
The renter said two gun bags matching that description had been inside the house days earlier and were now missing. The renter and owner had not authorized White to enter or take property. White was arrested later that day wearing clothing matching the lieutenant’s description. The bags were never recovered. At trial, White presented an alibi through his girlfriend and challenged the investigation; the jury convicted him and the superior court imposed a three-year prison term.
The Court’s Holding
The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find that White unlawfully entered the residence intending to commit theft, as required for second-degree burglary under Arizona law.
Although no forensic evidence connected White to the house and the lieutenant saw him outside rather than inside, the court held that the circumstantial evidence supported an inference of entry: White was seen leaving the house’s yard carrying gun bags that matched bags missing from inside the home. The court also held that the lieutenant’s recognition and identification of White, corroborated by White’s matching clothing at arrest, provided sufficient evidence of identity despite the alibi testimony, the missing bags, and the investigative error involving another neighborhood resident. Resolving those conflicts was for the jury.
Key Takeaways
- Circumstantial evidence may alone support a burglary conviction in Arizona.
- A defendant seen leaving a residence’s vicinity with items matching property missing from inside can support an inference that the defendant entered the residence.
- Conflicting alibi and identification evidence generally presents a credibility question for the jury when probative evidence supports the verdict.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that prosecutors need not produce recovered stolen property, forensic evidence, or direct eyewitness testimony of a defendant entering a building to prove burglary. A credible eyewitness account and circumstances linking the defendant to recently missing property may suffice.
The memorandum decision is nonprecedential under Arizona Supreme Court Rule 111(c) and may be cited only as authorized by that rule.