Evidence of intent to commit larceny was sufficient to support a burglary conviction where appellant entered a home with the intent to take a shower, and then decided to cook some food because he was hungry. Even if appellant’s intent at the time of entry was only to shower (there was no evidence that the shower had been used), showering requires the consumption of property – shampoo, soap, and hot water. An item of property need only have some intrinsic value, however slight, to be a proper subject of larceny. Further, it was not error for the court to have failed to instruct on a lesser related offense of trespass, because the prosecutor did not consent to the instruction.