## Facts

- Bowen and Rouse went with two women to the Detroit home of Matilda Gatzmeyer, an 80-year-old woman, and were admitted into the house.
- Bowen had previously visited Gatzmeyer’s home on multiple occasions as a purported handyman, which provided a lawful explanation for his presence.
- A neighbor saw defendants’ car, suspected wrongdoing, and called police.
- Police entered and found Bowen and Rouse near the rear of the house by the basement steps; the two women sat with Gatzmeyer in the living area; a bedroom was in disarray.
- After police brought defendants to the living room, an officer saw two rings belonging to Gatzmeyer under a television set near where Rouse sat.
- The neighbor and Gatzmeyer later found a necklace on the staircase near where Bowen had been standing when police first saw him.
- Defendants were charged with larceny in a building, but the trial judge submitted only the lesser offense of attempted larceny in a building to the jury.
- The trial judge instructed the jury that it could convict if it found defendants came to or entered the house intending to commit larceny, without instructing on the overt-act element of attempt.
- The jury convicted both defendants of attempted larceny in a building.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by permitting conviction for attempted larceny in a building based solely on entry (or coming to the house) with intent to steal, without requiring an overt act beyond mere entry.
2. Whether entry into a home by invitation, even with criminal intent, can constitute the overt act necessary for criminal attempt.

## Decision

- The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held that, on these facts, entry into the home by permission was too equivocal to satisfy attempt’s overt-act requirement.
- The court held the jury instructions misstated attempt law by allowing conviction based on intent plus entry alone and by failing to require the jury to find an overt act in furtherance of larceny.

## Legal Principles

- Criminal attempt requires both intent to commit the target offense and an overt act that moves beyond preparation toward commission.
- The overt act must objectively show that the defendant has translated intent into conduct in furtherance of the crime.
- Conduct that is equally consistent with lawful behavior is insufficient, standing alone, to serve as the overt act for attempt.
- When a defendant is lawfully present on premises by invitation, mere entry—without additional conduct clearly directed toward the crime—does not establish attempt.
- A trial court commits reversible error by instructing a jury that intent plus entry alone is sufficient for attempt, thereby removing the overt-act requirement from the jury’s determination.

## Conclusion

The convictions for attempted larceny in a building were reversed because the jury was allowed to convict based on entry with intent alone, despite attempt law requiring an overt act beyond ambiguous, lawful-appearing conduct; the case was remanded for a new trial with correct attempt instructions.


People v. Bowen, 10 Mich. App. 1, 158 N.W.2d 794 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968)