THIS ANALYSIS NEEDS AN EDIT:
Like the defendant in Ocheltree, Goodspeed took actions to determine if Matlak and Duncan were inside the tent. Goodspeed called out to the tent. Only after getting no response and seeing no one inside, Goodspeed entered the tent to take matches. Additionally, Goodspeed admitted in his own police report that he entered the tent intending to take matches thinking no one would notice. This statement shows that not only did Goodspeed have the intent to take the matches, but he did not have the intent to return them. Thus, a court will likely conclude that Goodspeed had the intent to commit a larceny within the tent because he entered to permanently take matches therein.
THE EDIT WILL CORRECT THE FOLLOWING:
AFTER THE EDIT, THE ANALYSIS IS NOW ACCOMPLISHED:
Here, Goodspeed burglarized the tent because he formed an intent before entering. Both Goodspeed and the Ocheltree defendant checked the premises to make sure no one was present before entering the tent and house respectively. Def. Aff. ¶2; Ocheltree, 55 S.E.2d at 745. For example, the Ocheltree defendant rang the doorbell and knocked on the door of the dwelling before he entered, which the court found demonstrated an intent to commit a crime therein. Id. at 746. Similarly, Goodspeed called out and looked inside the tent to see if it was occupied before he entered. Def. Aff. ¶2. Furthermore, much like the Ocheltree defendant, who demonstrated an intent to take property from the dwelling by communicating this to his friend, Goodspeed demonstrated an intent to take property from the tent when he reasoned to himself before entering that he did not think the Duncans would notice their matches were missing. Id. at 746; Def. Aff. ¶2. Accordingly, a court will likely follow the reasoning of Ocheltree and find that Goodspeed intended to commit a crime in the Duncans' tent because he checked to see if the tent was occupied and formed an intent to commit the crime before entering.
THE ANALYSIS IS ACCOMPLISHED FOR THESE REASONS: