## Facts

- In the early morning of May 20, 1991, James Beeley drove John Perry to Perry’s residence in East Providence.
- Perry entered the residence using his key and found his wife and Robert Harding in the bedroom, with Harding unclothed.
- Perry and Harding began fighting inside the residence; testimony differed on how the fight started and whether Perry was defending himself or attacking Harding without provocation.
- As the struggle moved toward the doorway, Harding attempted to push Perry out of the residence.
- Beeley, who had remained nearby after driving Perry home, entered the residence during the altercation and physically intervened on Perry’s behalf.
- Beeley struck Harding (including at least one punch). Beeley claimed he acted because he believed Perry was being unlawfully attacked by an intruder and needed help.
- Trial testimony conflicted on whether the door was already open when Beeley entered or whether Beeley used force to gain entry.
- A Superior Court jury convicted Beeley of breaking and entering and simple assault. The trial justice denied Beeley’s motion for judgment of acquittal and his motion for a new trial.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the “breaking” element of Rhode Island’s breaking-and-entering offense when the record showed, at most, entry through an already open door.
2. Whether the trial justice erred by instructing the jury that Beeley could lawfully use force in defense of Perry only if Perry was in fact entitled to act in self-defense, rather than if Beeley reasonably believed Perry needed protection.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Rhode Island vacated the breaking-and-entering conviction and directed entry of judgment of acquittal because the state’s proof did not establish a “breaking.”
- The court vacated the simple-assault conviction and remanded for a new trial because the defense-of-others instruction applied the wrong standard and could have affected the verdict.

## Legal Principles

- “Breaking” requires some application of force to create or enlarge an opening for entry; entering through an open door, without any exertion of force, does not satisfy the element.
- A defendant may use force in defense of another when the defendant reasonably believes that the third person is being unlawfully attacked and that intervention is necessary.
- A jury instruction that conditions defense of others on whether the person aided actually had the legal right of self-defense (an “alter-ego” approach) is erroneous where the law looks to the intervenor’s reasonable belief; a prejudicial misinstruction requires a new trial.

## Conclusion

State v. Beeley holds that a breaking-and-entering conviction cannot stand without evidence of a “breaking,” and that defense of another depends on the intervenor’s reasonable belief about the need to protect the third person, requiring a new assault trial when the jury is instructed to apply the aided person’s actual self-defense rights instead.


State v. Beeley, 653 A.2d 722 (1995)