AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Defendant Tareeq Munir was apprehended inside a pharmacy's ceiling after police responded to an alarm and discovered evidence of burglary and possession of narcotics. The incident occurred when the pharmacy was closed, and officers found damaged property, narcotics inside a trash bag, and other items indicating a break-in. Munir was found in the ceiling after officers heard noises and refused to come out voluntarily (paras 2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the defendant was guilty of ten charges including distribution of a controlled substance, aggravated burglary, criminal damage to property, and others based on the evidence found at the scene and the defendant's actions.
• Defendant-Appellant (Tareeq A. Munir): Raised claims of error on appeal, challenging the sufficiency of evidence for certain convictions, the amendment of charges after the close of evidence, and violations of double jeopardy principles.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in permitting an amendment to the charge stated in Count 1—distribution of a controlled substance—following the close of evidence.
• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's conviction for aggravated burglary.
• Whether the defendant's three convictions for criminal damage to property violate double jeopardy principles.
• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's convictions for possession of dangerous drugs and larceny.
• Whether the district court erred in admitting the defendant's statements post-arrest.

Disposition

• The conviction for distribution of a controlled substance under Count 1 was reversed due to an impermissible amendment to the indictment after the close of evidence.
• The conviction for aggravated burglary was reversed due to insufficient evidence of the defendant being armed with a deadly weapon, with instructions to enter judgment on the lesser offense of burglary.
• The three convictions for criminal damage to property were found to violate double jeopardy principles, with instructions to vacate the two misdemeanor counts.
• The court affirmed the defendant's convictions on all remaining matters (para 39).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals found that the amendment to Count 1 at the close of evidence charged the defendant with a different offense than originally indicted, violating the defendant's rights to adequate notice and the opportunity to defend against the charge. The evidence was deemed insufficient to prove the defendant was armed with a deadly weapon for the aggravated burglary charge, but sufficient for a lesser included offense of burglary. The court also found that the defendant's three convictions for criminal damage to property constituted double jeopardy. The court upheld the defendant's remaining convictions, including possession of dangerous drugs and larceny, finding sufficient evidence to support these charges. The court also found no error in the admission of the defendant's post-arrest statements, determining that the defendant had validly waived his Miranda rights and that the statements were voluntary (paras 4-35).