## Facts

- Around 3:00 a.m. on November 30, 1972, a resident, Beatrice Waiters, heard loud knocking and hammering and saw a man repeatedly kicking and pounding the door of the New Jersey Bar and Grill.
- Waiters saw the man pause, run across the street, return, continue pounding, and ultimately enter the building.
- Waiters called the bar’s proprietor, Joseph M. Miller, reported a break-in, and then called the police.
- Responding police observed a splintered door and were told the intruder was still inside.
- An officer entered the storeroom area, saw a figure in a dark area, ordered him to halt, and then heard footsteps running up a stairway after the figure fled.
- Police surrounded the building; after an officer called for anyone inside to come out, Roy Massey came down the stairs wearing only underwear and rubbing his eyes.
- Massey claimed he was staying with an upstairs resident, Matthews, and had heard nothing; Matthews and other upstairs residents, as well as the owner, denied admitting Massey or giving permission for him to be on the premises.
- Police found Massey’s clothes in the bar’s storeroom, where clothing was stored for a tailor.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Massey entered with the specific intent to steal, as required for second-degree burglary.
2. Whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct on unlawful entry as a lesser-included offense of burglary.
3. Whether the trial court erred by refusing a requested special instruction on eyewitness identification.

## Decision

- The court affirmed Massey’s conviction for second-degree burglary.
- The court held the evidence permitted a reasonable inference of intent to steal based on the time, forced entry, presence in the storeroom area, and flight when confronted.
- The court held a lesser-included instruction on unlawful entry was properly refused because the evidence did not provide a rational basis to acquit on burglary while convicting on unlawful entry.
- The court held the refusal of the requested identification instruction was not reversible error because the jury was otherwise adequately instructed on credibility and reasonable doubt, and the identification was supported by corroborating circumstances.

## Legal Principles

- Intent to steal for burglary may be proved by circumstantial evidence and reasonably inferred from surrounding facts, including forced nighttime entry into a business, concealment or presence near valuables, and flight upon discovery.
- A lesser-included offense instruction is required only when the evidence provides a rational basis to acquit on the greater offense and convict on the lesser.
- A trial court need not give a special identification instruction when the charge as a whole adequately addresses witness credibility and the government’s identification evidence is supported by corroboration.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the burglary conviction, finding the circumstances of a forcible early-morning entry and subsequent conduct supported an inference of intent to steal, and that neither a lesser-included unlawful-entry instruction nor a special identification instruction was warranted on this record.


Massey v. United States, 320 A.2d 296 (D.C. 1974)