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 charged with commercial burglary for entering a Walgreens store with the intent to commit theft, despite having previously received a no trespass order from Walgreens. The Defendant entered the store during business hours, remained in publicly accessible areas, and concealed a bottle of Bacardi Rum in his jacket without paying for it (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, Ross C. Sanchez, District Judge: Dismissed the indictment charging the Defendant with one count of commercial burglary, concluding that the precedent set by State v. Tower should be overruled in light of State v. Office of the Public Defender ex rel. Muqqddin (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State): Argued that the issue was improperly raised as a Foulenfont motion, that State v. Tower is directly on point, and that State v. Office of the Public Defender ex rel. Muqqddin is distinguishable (para 4).
• Defendant-Appellee: Argued that charging him with burglary, rather than with misdemeanor criminal trespass and shoplifting or petty larceny, resulted in an overly expansive application of the burglary statute, contrary to the caution advised by the Supreme Court in Muqqddin (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether State v. Tower should be overruled in light of State v. Office of the Public Defender ex rel. Muqqddin, and consequently, whether the Defendant's actions constitute commercial burglary under NMSA 1978, Section 30-16-3(B) (para 1).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals of New Mexico overruled State v. Tower and affirmed the district court's dismissal of the indictment charging the Defendant with commercial burglary (para 1).

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, Judge (Linda M. Vanzi, Judge, J. Miles Hanisee, Judge concurring):
  The court considered the Supreme Court's guidance in Muqqddin, which called into question the expansion of the burglary statute without parallel changes in the statute itself and emphasized the original purpose of the burglary statute to protect against the invasion of privacy and the feeling of personal violation. The court found that Tower's reliance on the plain language of the burglary statute was incompatible with the principles articulated in Muqqddin, which requires considering whether the conduct in question constitutes a "harmful entry" as intended by the Legislature. The court concluded that entry into an open public shopping area, even after receiving a no trespass notice, does not constitute the kind of harmful entry prohibited by the burglary statute. The court also considered the disparity in potential penalties between burglary and lesser offenses like trespass and shoplifting, indicating the Legislature's intent for such acts not to be punished as severely as burglary. The court applied the rule of lenity, resolving any ambiguity against the application of the burglary statute to the conduct at issue. The court overruled Tower, concluding that to hold otherwise would allow the State to enhance the misdemeanor act of trespassing to a felony, which Muqqddin does not permit (paras 5-19).