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 breaking and entering and criminal damage to property after allegedly entering and damaging a property co-owned with Kenneth Bartley and Sean Galloway without authorization. The Defendant argued that as a co-owner of the property, the facts presented by the State, even if true, did not constitute a violation of the statutes under which he was charged.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State): Argued that the district court made a pretrial factual determination exceeding the scope of Rule 5-601 NMRA and State v. Foulenfont, and erred in its legal determination that a co-tenant could never be convicted of breaking and entering or criminal damage to property when the property is held in co-tenancy.
• Defendant-Appellee: Contended that the facts articulated by the State, even if proven true, do not constitute a violation of the statutes because the Defendant is a co-owner of the property. The Defendant also attached a purchase agreement as evidence of co-ownership.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court exceeded its authority under Rule 5-601 NMRA and State v. Foulenfont by making a pretrial factual determination.
• Whether a co-tenant can be convicted of breaking and entering or criminal damage to property when the property at issue is held in co-tenancy.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's dismissal of the charges against the Defendant and remanded for reentry of the charges.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Timothy L. Garcia authoring the opinion, and Judges Celia Foy Castillo and Robert E. Robles concurring, found that the district court exceeded its authority under Rule 5-601 and Foulenfont by making a pretrial factual determination regarding co-tenancy. The Court distinguished the present case from Foulenfont, noting that in Foulenfont, the State did not dispute the defendants' characterization of the factual predicate underlying the charges and engaged in a purely legal argument, whereas in the present case, the State argued that factual determinations were necessary and did not stipulate to co-ownership. The Court concluded that the district court erred in making a factual determination about the existence of a co-tenancy pre-trial, which should have been decided by a jury.