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 case involves an incident where the Defendant was caught in the backyard of the Victim's home at night, allegedly attempting to burglarize the home. A struggle ensued, resulting in the Defendant shooting the Victim. The Defendant was charged with aggravated burglary and felony murder (paras 1, 5-6).
Procedural History
- District Court, Santa Fe County: The Defendant was convicted of aggravated burglary and felony murder and sentenced to life imprisonment (para 2).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the portal, a covered porch open on two sides, is not a structure under the aggravated burglary statute. Contended that the district court erred in including "portal" in the jury instruction and in admitting evidence of unrelated firearms and accessories (paras 3, 11).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Argued that the portal is a structure under the statute and that the district court did not err in its jury instructions or in admitting the evidence (paras 3, 37-39).
Legal Issues
- Whether the portal is a structure under New Mexico’s aggravated burglary statute.
- Whether the district court erred in including "portal" in the jury instruction for aggravated burglary.
- Whether the district court erred in admitting evidence of guns and accessories unrelated to the crime (para 3).
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico vacated the Defendant's convictions for aggravated burglary and felony murder.
- The State may reprosecute the Defendant on the same or lesser charges without violating double jeopardy (para 4).
Reasons
Per Vargas J. (Vigil, Bacon, and Zamora JJ. concurring):
The court concluded that the portal is not a structure under the aggravated burglary statute because it is not capable of completely confining people and their property, as it is open on two sides. The court emphasized that the statute requires a structure to be enclosed to create an expectation of privacy (paras 25-28). The court also found that the district court erred in admitting evidence of unrelated firearms and accessories, as this evidence was irrelevant and prejudicial (paras 44-52). The Defendant's issue regarding the jury instruction was rendered moot by the court's conclusion on the portal (para 43).
Thomson CJ., dissenting:
Thomson CJ. argued that the expectation of privacy and the security of the inhabitant should govern the analysis, not the architecture of the space. The dissent emphasized that the portal should be considered a dwelling under the burglary statute, as it is part of the living area and invokes the privacy interest the Legislature intended to protect (paras 55-75).