Massey v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals
320 A.2d 296, 1974 D.C. App. LEXIS 225 (1974)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The intent to steal required for a burglary conviction can be established by circumstantial evidence, and a jury may reasonably infer such intent from a defendant's forcible and unauthorized entry into a building at night, coupled with actions inside that suggest preparation for theft.


Facts:

  • Around 3:00 a.m., Mrs. Beatrice Waiters observed a man, the appellant, forcibly kicking and pounding on a door of the New Jersey Bar and Grill until he gained entry.
  • Mrs. Waiters called the proprietor, Mr. Joseph M. Miller, who had locked and bolted that same door when he closed the establishment at 2:40 a.m. after giving the appellant a ride home.
  • Mr. Miller had not given the appellant permission to re-enter the premises after hours.
  • Upon entering the building, police found the appellant clad only in his underwear, claiming he was staying with a resident upstairs, Mr. Matthews.
  • Both residents of the upstairs apartment, Ms. Mitchell and Mr. Matthews, denied giving the appellant permission to be there or letting him into the building.
  • In a storeroom area, clothing that had been hanging on racks was found folded and stacked on the floor next to a box that also contained some of the clothes.
  • The appellant’s coat and shoes were found near the storeroom door where the stacked clothes were located.

Procedural Posture:

  • The appellant was prosecuted by the government in the trial court.
  • During the trial, the appellant made a motion for judgment of acquittal for failure of proof, which the trial court denied.
  • A jury found the appellant guilty of second-degree burglary.
  • The trial court entered a judgment of conviction and sentenced the appellant.
  • The appellant (appellant) appealed the conviction to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, with the United States as the appellee.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does sufficient evidence exist to support the element of 'intent to steal' for a second-degree burglary conviction where the evidence shows a defendant's forcible nighttime entry into a commercial establishment, coupled with the stacking of valuable items inside, and an attempt to conceal his presence?


Opinions:

Majority - Associate Judge Gallagher

Yes. The evidence was sufficient for a jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant entered with the intent to steal. While unauthorized presence alone does not prove criminal purpose, it may be inferred from other circumstances. The requisite intent is a state of mind that must typically be shown through circumstantial evidence. In this case, the combination of an early morning forcible entry, the preparation to carry away items of value (the clothes), and the appellant's attempts to conceal his actions by claiming to be a guest upstairs provided ample evidence for a jury to infer an intent to steal. The court rejected the reasoning of United States v. Melton, stating that a forcible breaking and entering at night is a significant factor from which criminal intent can be inferred, especially when coupled with other suspicious actions inside the premises.



Analysis:

This decision reinforces the principle that the 'mens rea' or intent element of burglary can be proven entirely through circumstantial evidence. It establishes that a combination of forcible nighttime entry and preparatory acts inside the premises is sufficient for a jury to infer intent to steal, even if the theft is not completed. The court's explicit disagreement with the D.C. Circuit's decision in United States v. Melton signals a preference for a more pragmatic standard, making it easier for prosecutors to secure burglary convictions where direct evidence of intent is absent. This holding solidifies a practical approach to proving intent in cases interrupted by police or citizens, recognizing that direct evidence of a suspect's thoughts is rarely available.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Massey v. United States (1974) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.