State v. Beeley

653 A.2d 722 (1995)

Quick Summary

Quick Summary Icon

James Beeley (defendant) faced charges from the State of Rhode Island (plaintiff) for intervening in a physical dispute between John Perry and Robert Harding at Perry’s residence. The case centered around whether Beeley’s belief that he was aiding in self-defense justified his use of force.

The Supreme Court of Rhode Island overturned Beeley’s conviction, ruling that entry through an open door did not meet the legal definition of ‘breaking and entering’ and that an individual’s reasonable belief should determine their right to defend another. The assault charge was remanded for a new trial with proper jury instructions.

Facts of the Case

Facts of the case Icon

James Beeley (defendant) was charged with assault after intervening in a fight at John Perry’s residence, believing Perry required assistance against Robert Harding. The incident occurred within Perry’s home, where Harding was found in bed with Perry’s wife, Julie. Upon discovering this, Perry and Harding engaged in a physical altercation that spilled into the hallway.

Beeley, arriving at the scene, entered the apartment and struck Harding to aid Perry, whom he perceived as defending himself against an intruder. The State of Rhode Island (plaintiff) pursued legal action against Beeley for his involvement in the incident.

During the trial, conflicting evidence arose over whether Perry or Harding was the initial aggressor. Beeley maintained that his actions were justified under the belief that Perry was acting in self-defense.

However, the trial judge instructed the jury that Beeley’s justification was only valid if Perry had indeed been defending himself, not if he was attacking Harding. The jury found Beeley guilty of assault, prompting his appeal to the Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

Procedural Posture and History

History Icon
  1. James Beeley was tried and convicted for breaking and entering and simple assault in the Superior Court.
  2. Beeley filed a motion for judgment of acquittal and a new trial, which were both denied by the trial justice.
  3. Beeley appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

I.R.A.C. Format


Issue Icon
  • Whether Beeley was justified in using force on Perry’s behalf only if Perry was defending himself, as instructed by the trial judge.
  • Whether Beeley’s own belief in the necessity of his actions was sufficient for justification.

Rule of Law

Rule Icon

A person intervening in defense of another stands in the shoes of the person they are aiding only if that person would be justified in defending themselves. The use of force is justified when the intervenor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect a third person from unlawful attack.

Reasoning and Analysis

Reasoning Icon

The Supreme Court of Rhode Island found that the trial justice erred in denying Beeley’s motion for judgment of acquittal on the breaking and entering charge because there was no evidence that Beeley exerted any force to enter the apartment. The Court determined that merely walking through an open door did not constitute a ‘break’ as defined legally.

Consequently, the evidence did not support a jury verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for breaking and entering. Regarding the assault charge, the Court concluded that the trial justice incorrectly instructed the jury based on an ‘alter ego’ rule applicable to arrest situations rather than altercations between private individuals.

The Court decided that an intervenor’s actions should be judged based on their own reasonable perceptions, not solely on whether the person they are aiding would be justified in self-defense. Therefore, Beeley’s conviction for assault was also vacated on these grounds.


Conclusion Icon

The Supreme Court of Rhode Island vacated Beeley’s convictions for both breaking and entering and simple assault, remanding the case for a new trial on the assault charge consistent with their opinion.

Key Takeaways

Takeaway Icon
  1. The ‘break’ in breaking and entering requires exertion of force; merely entering through an open door does not meet this criterion.
  2. An individual intervening in defense of another should be judged based on their own reasonable perceptions, not just on whether the person they are assisting had a right to self-defense.
  3. The Supreme Court of Rhode Island distinguishes between rules applicable to arrest situations versus altercations among private individuals when it comes to defense of another.

Relevant FAQs of this case

What constitutes a "break" in the context of breaking and entering law?

A “break” in the legal sense involves using any amount of force to gain entry into a property, including a slight push against a door that is ajar or cutting through a screen window. The act must be forceful enough to constitute an unwelcome intrusion.

  • For example: If an individual opens an unlocked window and climbs into an apartment, this action constitutes a break as they have used force against the property to gain entry.

How may an individual's reasonable belief affect their right to defend someone else?

An individual’s right to defend another is predicated on their reasonable belief that the person being defended is under unlawful attack. If this belief is both genuine and reasonable under the circumstances, then the use of force in defense may be justified.

  • For example: A passerby sees someone being threatened with a knife and intervenes by pushing the attacker away; their action would likely be considered justifiable self-defense, even if later evidence suggests the threat was not as severe as believed at the time.

In what ways are the rules of using force in defense of self or others different in arrest situations compared to private altercations?

In arrest situations, individuals, including law enforcement, must adhere to stricter standards and are permitted to use force only when necessary and proportionate. In contrast, private altercations generally allow for a broader interpretation of reasonable force based on the perceived immediate threat.

  • For example: While an officer may need to have probable cause to use force during an arrest, a civilian acting in defense of themselves or others during an assault may only need a reasonable belief that the force used is necessary for protection.


Last updated

Was this case brief helpful?

More Case Briefs in Criminal Law