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 of residential burglary, criminal damage to property, and larceny. The Defendant argued that his initial entry into the residence was to escape the cold, not to commit theft. However, during a subsequent re-entry, the Defendant broke a lock and took various items from the residence before being discovered.

Procedural History

• APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OTERO COUNTY, Jerry H. Ritter, Jr., District Judge: Convictions for residential burglary, criminal damage to property, and larceny were affirmed.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the conviction for residential burglary should be reversed due to insufficient evidence proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically that there was no intent to commit theft upon initial entry, claiming entry was made to escape the cold.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the Defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for the charge of residential burglary.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions for residential burglary, criminal damage to property, and larceny.

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge (M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge, and EMIL J. KIEHNE, Judge, concurring): The Court found the Defendant's argument that the State failed to prove burglarious intent upon his first entry into the residence unconvincing. It highlighted that a reasonable jury could infer the requisite specific intent from the unauthorized entry alone, supported by case law. Even if the initial intent was questionable, the Defendant's actions during his subsequent re-entry, which included breaking a lock and taking items, sufficiently supported the conviction. The Court also noted that it was unnecessary for the State to specify or for the jury to agree on which entry formed the conviction's basis, citing precedents that a jury's unanimity is required only as to the verdict, not to any particular theory of guilt (paras 1-6).