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

• The Defendant was convicted for breaking and entering into a residence. The evidence presented showed that the Defendant entered the residence without permission by cutting a window screen. The Defendant did not dispute the evidence of cutting into the window screen but argued that this act constituted an insufficient "entry" and that the State failed to present evidence that he acted without the homeowner's permission (para 3).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Curry County, Matthew E. Chandler, District Judge, February 7, 2019: The Defendant was convicted for breaking and entering.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the act of cutting into a window screen did not constitute a sufficient "entry" for a breaking and entering conviction and contended that the State failed to prove he acted without the homeowner's permission (para 3).
• Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for breaking and entering, specifically whether cutting a window screen constitutes an "entry" and whether the entry was without the homeowner's permission (para 2-3).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction for breaking and entering (para 4).

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, J. (J. MILES HANISEE, J., and KRISTINA BOGARDUS, J., concurring): The Court conducted a two-step process to review the sufficiency of the evidence, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determining whether a rational trier of fact could find each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court found that the Defendant's act of cutting the window screen constituted the "least intrusion" into an interior space, which meets the definition of "entry" for breaking and entering. Furthermore, the Court determined that the unauthorized nature of the entry could be inferred from the Defendant's damaging of property and penetration of a protected space, supported by precedent that circumstantial evidence can prove unauthorized entry. Therefore, the Court affirmed the conviction based on the sufficiency of the evidence presented (paras 2-4).