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

• A UPS driver discovered a burglary at a house under construction after noticing open doors and no homeowner present. The homeowner, working out of town, had been building the house and staying there intermittently, despite it lacking power or running water. The burglary resulted in significant loss, including homebuilding tools, liquor bottles, a generator, and a TV. The homeowner had taken measures to secure the house and had a surveillance system that captured images leading to the Defendant's arrest (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of San Juan County: Convicted the Defendant of burglary of a dwelling, larceny over $2,500, and criminal damage to property over $1,000.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the conviction for burglary of a dwelling is not supported by sufficient evidence because the house was under construction, lacked essential utilities, and was not "customarily used" as living quarters (para 1).
• Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for burglary of a dwelling, considering the house's condition and use at the time of the incident.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction for burglary of a dwelling house (para 24).

Reasons

• The Court, led by Judge Kristina Bogardus with concurrence from Chief Judge J. Miles Hanisee and Judge Jacqueline R. Medina, held that the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction. The Court reasoned that despite the house's incomplete construction and lack of utilities, the homeowner's use of the house for habitation, albeit intermittent due to his work schedule, and his efforts to secure the property demonstrated a customary use as living quarters. The Court distinguished this case from prior jurisprudence by emphasizing the homeowner's actual use of the property for living purposes and the security measures taken to protect it. The decision was grounded in the interpretation of the burglary statute and the definition of "dwelling house" as any structure customarily used as living quarters, considering the interests protected by the statute (paras 4-23).