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 attempting to remove a window screen from a home when he noticed the homeowner and left without entering. He was convicted of breaking and entering for his actions involving the space between the window screen and the window (paras 1-4).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Doña Ana County, Fernando Macias, District Judge, where the Defendant was convicted of one count of breaking and entering.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant: Argued that the Legislature did not intend for the act of intruding into the space between a screen and a window to be punished as breaking and entering. Also contended that the evidence was insufficient to prove he entered that space (para 5).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the act of intruding into the space between a window screen and an open window constitutes breaking and entering under the statute.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's conclusion that the Defendant entered the space between the screen and window (para 5).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of breaking and entering (para 25).

Reasons

• The Court, led by Judge Bustamante, with Judge Wechsler concurring and Judge Kennedy dissenting, held that the Defendant's conduct fell within the scope of the breaking and entering statute. The Court reasoned that the statute and its purpose, informed by common law and analogous statutes, aimed to protect possessory rights, privacy, and security of habitation, which extend to the space between a window screen and an open window. The Court found that a reasonable person would expect a window screen to provide some protection against unauthorized intrusions, thus concluding that the Defendant's actions constituted an entry for the purposes of the statute. The Court also found sufficient evidence to support the jury's conclusion that the Defendant had entered the space between the screen and window, based on the homeowner's testimony. Judge Kennedy's dissent argued against expanding the definition of "entry" to include the space between a window screen and window, suggesting that the Defendant's actions were better characterized as an attempt and covered by other statutes (paras 6-25).